I NEED your help and thoughts - UPDATE

[Parrishco]

As of right now the GunFacts PDF and the DOJ ( http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm ) website are my main sources. I was just looking for the positive side of this ie, the people saved or crimes prevented. Thanks though

[jednp]

Apparently this guy didn't see what happened in new orleans. Guns were taken away from law abiding citizens, and it left only criminals with guns to do whatever they wanted.

According to the international police agency, interpol, the number of crimes per hundred thousand people in the United States is about 4,000, while in France the number of crimes per hundred thousand people is almost 7,000. That's 4% rate for the U.S. and 7% for France. So to say the gun laws in countries such as france have reduced crime, is false. People commit crimes regardless of guns, and even get more violent with no threat of guns being used on them.

Since gun banning has escalated in the UK, the rate of crime - especially violent crime - has risen.
Fact: Street robberies sored 28% in 2001. Violent crime was up 11%, murders up 4%, and rapes are up 14%.
(Source: British Home Office, reported by BBC news, July 12, 2002)

Fact: Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is flawed. In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. (Source: Gallant, Hills, Kopel, "Fear in Britain", Independence Institute, July 18, 2000). To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism. (Source: "Crime Figures a Sham, Say Police", Daily Telegraph, April 1, 1996)

Fact: A continuing parliamentary inquiry into the growing number of black market weapons has concluded that there are more than three million illegally held firearms in circulation - double the number believed to have been held 10 years ago - and that criminals are more willing than ever to use them. One in three criminals under the age of 25 possesses or has access to a firearm. (Source: Reported in the Guardian, September 3, 2000)

Fact: Handgun Homicides in England and Wales reached an all-time high in 2000, years after a virtual ban on private handgun ownership. More than 3,000 crimes involving handguns were recorded in 1999-2000, including the 42 homicides, 310 cases of attempted murder, 2,561 robberies and 204 burglaries. "42 killed by handguns last year", The Times, January 10, 2001, reporting on statistics supplied by the British Home Office)

Australia:

Fact: Crime has been rising since a sweeping ban on private gun ownership. In the first two years after gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms, government statistics show a dramatic increase in criminal activity. (Source: Australia Bureau of Statistics, "Crime and Justice - Crimes Recorded by Police", 2000) In 2001-2002 homicides were up another 20%. (Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, "Report #46: Homicide in Australia, 2001-2002, April 2003)

From the inception of firearm confiscation to March 27, 2000, the numbers are:
* Gun murders up 19%
* Armed robbery up 69%
* Home invasions up 21%

The sad part is that in the 15 years before national gun confiscation:
* Firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66%
* Firearm-related deaths fell 50%

Fact: Gun Crimes are rising throughout Australia after guns were banned. In Sydney alone, robbery rates with guns rose 160% in 2001, more in the previous year. (Source: The Sydney Morning Herald, "Costa targets armed robbers:, April 4, 2002)

Here's some offence categories, and the amount they have risen from pre-ban era.

Armed robbery, increased 170.1% from pre-ban

Kidnapping/abduction increased 144.0%

Assault increased 130.9%

Attempted murder increased 112.6%

Sexual assault increased 112.6%


Just a few examples of how gun control in other countries, has proven to not reduce violent crime with or without guns being used. All they need to say to themselves, is Rememeber New Orleans. Take away guns, and they won't be as safe as they are now and will enjoy every household being an easier target for home invasion.

[TomSwift]

Another PhD. Another person educated beyond his intelligence.

[cucamelsmd15]

Originally Posted by TomSwift

Another PhD. Another person educated beyond his intelligence.

In my experience (and myself included), some of these people can be damn stupid.

[GUNPILOT]

A. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000. The number of accidental
deaths caused by physicians per year is 120,000. Accidental deaths per
physician is 0.171 (U.S. Dept. of Health &
Human Services)

Then think about this:

B. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000 and the number of
accidental gun deaths per year of all ages is 1500. So the number of
accidental gun deaths per gun owner is .0000188.

Statistically then, doctors are approximately 9000 times more dangerous than
gun owners.

Fact: Not everyone has a gun, but almost everyone has at least one doctor.

Alert: Please tell your friends about this alarming threat. We must ban
doctors before this gets out of hand. As a public health measure I have
withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear that the shock could cause
people to seek medical attention.

[TomSwift]

I "Stumbled Upon" this site the other day. May have some pertinent info for your rebuttal.
The Other Side - The Gun Thing

[docrice]

I see lots of arguments done for and against "guns" in general. Here's my experience with all this - years ago, I was probably more "against" guns, even though I've had some minor experiences with them (dad took me shooting occasionally when I was 6, etc.). But over the years as I thought about this more, I became more "for" it. The difference lies in the understanding and interpretation of weapons in our society.

Both sides have a common agenda - the reduction of crime. "For" advocates probably have additional reasons for using weapons (enjoyment of shooting, etc.). If you are a martial arts practitioner, you learn that just because you handle weapons doesn't necessarily mean by itself that you're encouraging crime by its availability. Iaido students use swords as a spiritual device, as an example. I target shoot with a compound bow (no hunting), but you don't see me or anyone else running through the streets performing "ballistics tests" with it on others. Sure, automatic firearms makes crime much easier to perform, but it's more effective to look at the reason for crime, not the technological instrument that helped make it happen.

The elimination of firearms won't eliminate criminal behavior, which in itself seems to be partially rooted through economic problems. And perhaps negligent parenting.

The key here is education. While I understand the gun control advocates' fear of guns, the fear seems to stem from ignorance and the casual and immediate association with violence from common mainstream perception (movies, news headlines, etc.). I think if we really want to "convince the other side," then we need to see why they're so apprehensive about the subject. Not including politicians, of course, since they always have their own agenda.

I sympathize with victims or crime (direct and indirect), but the debate might be better served by tuning it more through their viewpoint, not just the usual "from the other end of the table" counterargument with statistical numbers. I'm new at all this, but it feels like a standoff right now and it's not going anywhere.

Personally, I got better things to do than to deal with owning a gun. It's expensive, ammo costs too much, etc.. But I own one because I can't rely on law enforcement for instant response and there are always questionable lurkers in our midst.

[XD2005]

Well, if I am not mistaken, he is arguing that by outlawing firearms, it would cut the supply to the criminals.

Sounds all nice, but I would argue that point using drugs (illegal) as an example. Obviouosly, they are illegal, yet somehow the criminals still are able to get their hands on it. Does he really think criminals don't/won't have their own sources? Criminals are not going to care if guns are illegal, just as they don't care about all the other laws they break.

[Parrishco]

Here was my response article:

(In response to Wednesday April 19th 2006 Editorial: Gun Owners Endanger Streets)

Dear Editor,

After reading Wednesday’s editorial entitled “Gun Owners Endanger Streets”, I felt compelled to clarify some of the facts presented in that article and to provide a converse perspective. I, unlike Scott Hendrix, grew up being told that guns were “evil” and I was never allowed to have fake toy guns, much less a BB gun or, God-forbid, a .22 caliber rifle. It wasn’t until I was already in college that I was introduced to the world of firearms. However, I soon discovered that many of the so-called facts that I was told growing up were little more than myths propagated by the anti-gun community. Let me share a few of the things that I have learned since then on my own.
The original editorial correctly cited a statistic that stated in 2003 there were 30,136 gun related deaths. Though when put into perspective of the total 2,448,288 deaths in 2003 , gun related deaths (including accidental shootings, legal interventions and suicides) only account for a mere 0.01%. (I say gun as if the object alone is doing the killing. This of course is not the case, as a gun requires a person to fire it. Maybe it would be clearer if I say “was killed by a person with a gun”) A person is 22.7 times more likely to die of heart disease and 18.5 times more likely to die from a malignant neoplasm (cancer), rather than from a gun related death – even a self inflicted one like suicide. In fact you’re twice as likely to die from the flu rather than by a gun. Of the gun deaths that do occur, suicides make up 56.5% according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. In fact, drugs and suicides account for more than 2 out of every 3 gun deaths in the United States.
Of the 4.8 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault, only 6% of these incidents involved a firearm in 2004 . In reality, only 0.06% of the firearms owned in the United States are even used in a crime. In fact, the Bureau of Justice tells us that firearm related crime has plummeted since 1993 and nonfatal firearm crime rates have declined since 1994, reaching the lowest level ever recorded in 2004.
Furthermore, gun control does not have a positive effect on crime. The U.S. government “found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.” In fact, violent crime appears to be encouraged by gun control. Most gun control laws in the United States have been written since 1968, yet the overall murder rate has risen during that time.
Many of the countries with the strictest gun control, Australia and England for example, have the highest violent crime rate of any of the top 17 industrialized countries. Switzerland has extremely lenient gun control (more so than the U.S.) , and has the third-lowest homicide rate of the top nine major European countries, and the same per capita rate as England and Wales. In Britain, where not even the police are allowed to have guns, one in three criminals under the age of 25 possesses or has access to a firearm. In Australia crime has been rising since a sweeping ban on private gun ownership. In the first two years after gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms, government statistics show a dramatic increase in criminal activity: A 170.1% increase in armed robbery. A 144% increase in kidnapping/abduction. A 130.9% increase in assault, and a 117.6% increase in attempted murder. Clearly banning guns is not the all in all solution to crime. We should ban guns no more than we should ban cars. Though there are reckless people who kill with both, the problem lies in the irresponsible use of the tool, not in the tool itself.
Economics, race and class have little to do with who is affected by gun crime. That’s not to say that it doesn’t affect some regions more than others, but merely that it has nothing to do with race or class in and of itself. If anything it only proves that the real problem is not guns but criminals. Crimes tend to happen where criminals live. From 1960-1980, the per capita imprisonment for violent crimes fell from 738 to 227. In the same period, violent crime rates nationwide tripled. 71% of gunshot victims have previous arrest records, and of those each had an average of 11 previous arrest records. 45% of state prisoners were, at the time they committed their offense, under conditional supervision in the community--either on probation or on parole. Most gun violence is criminals hurting other criminals or criminals hurting people when they should be in prison.
Perhaps the best way to prevent gun deaths is to treat depression and mental illness (the root cause in many suicides), educated children, and tell them not to use or sell illegal drugs, treat drug addiction (the root motivation of many gun crimes) and have more police and funds concentrated on enforcing drug laws. The gun control lobby, however, says that we should spend billions of dollars on gun registration and gun licensing instead of using the money to treat the deeper issues that cause the criminals to use a gun as their tool to commit crimes. There were criminals and murder before there were guns and crime has prevailed throughout history. Empowering and encouraging criminals by assuring them that their victims will not be armed or be able to fight force with force only provokes crime, not hinder it. The responsibility of firearms lies with the owner, not with the government.
What about those who say “you are far more likely to be hurt with your own weapon rather than stop a crime”? The fact is that you are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun. In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were 6% if the victim resisted with a gun, 25% injury rate if the victim did nothing at all, 40% if the victim resisted with a knife and if the victim tried to non-violently resist they were injured 45% of the time.
Guns actually prevent crime. Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Often the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed. Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually fired. 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed. Washington D.C. has banned gun ownership and has a murder rate of 56.9 per 100,000. Across the river in Arlington, Virginia, gun ownership is not regulated, and the murder rate is a mere 1.6 per 100,000. Furthermore, one can see the impact guns have on crime by the example of Kennesaw, GA which, in 1982, passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% the following year. 74% of felons agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime". 57% of those felons polled also agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." As we can see guns do have an impact on crime: they stop it.
The facts go on and on, but time and space restrict a fuller argument of this topic. Suffice it to say that those who do their homework and find out the real facts of gun crime in this country always seem to support citizen’s constitutional right to legal ownership of firearms. Those who lobby so voraciously for gun control all too often have hidden agendas or are simply misinformed. Gun control issues traverse just the realm of crime prevention and cross over into the guaranteeing, not only our individual protection, but also the freedoms of our nation as a whole.
One of the chieftains of 20th century peace, Mahatma Gandhi, said “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
Perhaps John Adams, the first vice president and second president of the United States, stated it best when he said “Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would.” He also said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
Many more facts and statistics on guns and related violence are available at http://www.gunfacts.info and the Department of Justice website: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm. A full edition of this article with endnotes verifying all contained information is available by emailing Parrishco@utk.edu.

Drew Parrish
Junior in BCMB

[jednp]

Very well written letter. Can only hope it opens some people's eyes who are against guns, to actually look at some facts and change their minds.