Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CaptainBubba
I meant a superior source supporting an opposing side to my argument Kevin.
|
But that's just the thing, it isn't that the numbers are wrong, it's that they can be used by one side in a slanted fashion in order to justify their claims.
For example, you yourself just said that the murder rate in America is actually higher, even when excluding the use of guns.
Also, According to the U.S. Department of Justice, "Violent crime rates Unlike the record rate of handgun crimes in 1992, the overall rates
for violent crimes were well below the 1981 peaks. (Except where
noted, this brief excludes homicides, which NCVS does not measure.)"
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
(this was the most recent data the Bureau had available)
In other words, while violent crime was down, crime as a result of handgun use was UP, exceeding the national level.
But on your point about violence resulting w/o handguns, the Bureau also states that:
*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
This substantiates your claim, which is dated in 1992, most likely working off the same sources I am right now. But what does this mean? With your logic, since handguns aren't the biggest indicator of injury during an assault, shouldn't we then be legislating kitchen knives, or in fact mandating that everyone have guns??
Here's another one:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
*In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or
their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed
or armed with weapons other than firearms. On average between 1987
and 1992, about 35% (or 22,000 per year) of the violent crime
victims defending themselves with a firearm faced an offender who
also had a firearm.
So, doesn't this dispute the idea that gun legislation will only hurt the "good guys"?? It looks like we need to be legislating OTHER things, right CB...?
Here is my point: Like I said, I do happen to agree with the pro-gun side on frequent occassions. However, one should be cautious when using data already provided by those who have essentially filtered it, and phrased it to suit their own purposes.