Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old May 8th, 2003, 08:40 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainBubba
Statistics Kevin, statistics. The facts are right before you. Accidents like the ones you are describing are vastly outnumbered compared to ones simmilar to my example.
Courtesy of gunowners.org (sniker, snicker): "* Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).4 And readers of Newsweek learned in 1993 that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The "error rate" for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."5"

* GEORGE F. MOTHER F'N WILL!!!

Not a government resource, not census data, but from GEORGE F. WILL! Don't get me wrong, I enjoy his columns for a good chuckle, and he's a very bright man, but he certainly doesn't clasify as a solid statistical resource.

I tried finding a copy of the Newsweek article they cited from 1993, "Are we a nation of cowards?", but couldn't find it archived anywhere. I'd be interested to see what citations HE used in the article.

I'm willing to bet we could pick apart many of the "statistics" presented on this website, if anybody cared or had the time.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
CaptainBubba CaptainBubba is offline
xXxASPERGERSxXx
CaptainBubba's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
CaptainBubba is probably a spambot
Old May 8th, 2003, 08:52 PM       
Till the very early 1900s people were allowed handguns I believe Pub. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Kev: Please present your superior statistics and data.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Pub Lover Pub Lover is offline
Näyttelijäbotti!
Pub Lover's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Mogadishu, Texas
Pub Lover is probably pretty okPub Lover is probably pretty okPub Lover is probably pretty okPub Lover is probably pretty okPub Lover is probably pretty ok
Old May 8th, 2003, 09:08 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainBubba
Till the very early 1900s people were allowed handguns
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainBubba
You are more likely to be murdered in Britain now than you were when guns were legal there.
Bubba, I have a faint notion that you'll find that the rise in gun related deaths in the US over the last hundred years is not even slightly in proportion to that of the UK.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Boogie
No YouTube embeds in your sigs, poindexter.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old May 8th, 2003, 10:17 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainBubba
Kev: Please present your superior statistics and data.
How about the U.S. Department of Justice? http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

They have extensive dats on firem-arm incidents involving self-defense, mainly with hand guns.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a bit of a moderate on the gun issue, but I have difficulty believing a site called "gunowners.org," who also cite a George F. Will column that you can't even find anymore.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
CaptainBubba CaptainBubba is offline
xXxASPERGERSxXx
CaptainBubba's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
CaptainBubba is probably a spambot
Old May 9th, 2003, 12:32 AM       
I meant a superior source supporting an opposing side to my argument Kevin.

Pub: I don't believe your notion is correct and I'll put more research into it later, but for now this link will suffice to serve my point.

http://www.crpa.org/pressrls101502.html

And just a reminder to those citing the high murder rate in the U.S, please note that the murder rate in the U.S excluding gun murders is alone higher than the total murder rates in England, Canada, or Japan.*

*Erik Eckholm, "A Basic Issue: Whose Hands Should Guns Be Kept Out of?" The New York Times, 3 April 1992; and Kates, Guns, Murders, and the Constitution, at 42.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old May 9th, 2003, 07:38 PM       
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:19 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.