America's Shooting Gallery, May 5, 2008

[zanne]

IL: Parents of the 5-year-old boy who accidentally shot himself in the head at his family's South Side residence were charged Sunday in connection with the incident.
VA: Cynthia Nicholson called police warning that her husband, Manuel, was going to hurt her. When officers arrived to the home they found Cynthia dead from a gunshot wound to her torso, and Manuel dead after he turned on the gun on himself.
IL: Five men are in the hospital Monday morning with gunshot wounds following three separate shootings on the South Side of Chicago.
CA: Two men were shot and killed within a 30-minute period Saturday night in separate shootings in San Francisco. Ajason Black, 32, was gunned down outside the Japan Center; Victor Carson, 41, was struck by gunfire in a shooting in the Potrero Hill neighborhood.
GA: Atlanta police officers shot and killed a gun-wielding man in Buckhead early Sunday after he refused orders to drop the weapon, police said. In a separate incident, a security guard was shot.
MN: A 14-year-old is fighting for his life and a 17-year-old male is in stable condition after two shootings in St. Paul's West Side. Four juveniles and an adult are behind bars in connection with the two shootings Saturday.
PA: Edward S. Moore Jr., 36, shot Lori Ann Houser, 45, in the head, killing her before turning the gun on himself.
NY: Darien Fire Hall holds benefit for 2 teenage girls who lost their parents in a murder suicide. In January, Gary Belz, 55, used a shotgun to kill his wife, Deborah Belz, 43, then used a handgun to kill himself.
MA: In Londonderry, a resident escaped serious injury when he accidentally shot himself in the hand with a .32 caliber handgun.
AL: A man accidentally shot himself when he was cleaning his gun according to Hoover police. The man's injuries were not believed to be life-threatening.
***

Source: http://www.gunguys.com

[57_TomCat]

1. More examples of the small minority of...

terrible things that happen with a miniscule number of the available tools and gun owners in the country today and reported by a biased group of anti-gun supporters.

Emotianal anecdotes that prey on the horror of the moment without addressing the reality of the numbers of non involved guns and gun owners. A complete lack of notice of the situations where guns play an important role in the saving of lives and prevention or suppression of crime and violence. A complete lack of fairness. I feel for your inability to get beyond your fears.

[zanne]

2. These things happen EVERY day.

And they're not "minor" when they happen to somebody you know.

By the way, I feel for you and your phobia. Being unable to survive without a gun must be a very sad life. How many people do you think are out to get you? I believe that's called "paranoia".

[gorfle]

4. Yup, people win the lottery every day, too.

These things happen EVERY day.

Lots of rare events happen every day. People win the lottery. People get struck by lightning.

And they're not "minor" when they happen to somebody you know.

Of course not. No one is is belittling the tragedies. Getting struck by lighting is rare, but it's little consolation to the guy who gets struck.

Nonetheless, the point of your posts seems to be to show that America is a "shooting gallery" where guns are constantly misused.

The fact of the matter is, given the number of firearm owners and firearms in circulation, they are hardly ever misused. The 800,000 firearm incidents that happen annually amount to less than 2% of all firearm owners, and less than 1% of all firearms.

By the way, I feel for you and your phobia. Being unable to survive without a gun must be a very sad life. How many people do you think are out to get you? I believe that's called "paranoia".

I have automobile, life, homeowner's, and health insurance. Does this make me paranoid, or just prepared?

Were our founding fathers paranoid because they wanted an armed populace able to eliminate or counter federal military power?

[SteveM]

5. Then you should prohibit electricity and bathtubs. I mean, deaths EVERY day.

[57_TomCat]

7. I do not carry a gun daily...

because I need it. I carry it in case I might need it. Having been in situations where I "did" need it I was comforted by its presence even though I did not need to shoot it.

I have yet to be bitten by this "paranoia" bug you speak of but I am sure you will enlighten me at some point. Also which phobia are you referring too? Is it the one about being trapped in constricting places? That one really gives me in the willies. I have not yet figured out how a gun will help me in that one. Let me know please if you find a use for one in that situation.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hack89]

10. It has been 5 years since a gun death of any kind

in my town of 17,000. The two adjoining towns have similar populations and statistics. It is rare where I live.

[iverglas]

11. who the fuck cares, Tom?

Emotianal anecdotes that prey on the horror of the moment without addressing the reality of the numbers of non involved guns and gun owners.

Who the fuck cares how many guns and gun owners were "non involved"? What does that have to do with anything at all?

How about the several thousand gun owners whose several thousand guns were stolen in the last year, because they didn't have the common fucking decency to keep their firearms out of the hands of people who do use them for purposes like some of those described in this thread. Were they "non-involved"?

How about the undoubtedly several million gun owners whose guns are sitting on top of bookshelves (see other thread in this forum) or being played with by their 16-yr-old sons (ask google for Senator Bob Regola) ... all "non involved" until a five-yr-old gets hold of one of them and kills her little sister, or the 16-yr-old neighbour kid gets hold of one of them and kills himself? "Non-involved", are they?

"the horror of the moment"? You can call the death of a person "the horror of the moment"? My dad's death from a heart attack when I was present could be described as "the horror of the moment", I guess. It certainly was a horrible moment. I guess if you read about it in the paper, that's what it would be to you. To me, it is the loss of the only father I'll ever have, the loneliness that will be my mother's companion for the rest of her life, the gap in the lives of my very young nieces. The death of a human being is not "the horror of the moment" to the people whose lives that person occupied a part of.

Ten thousand "horrible moments" like these a year in the US -- if we count only firearms homicides. Start counting some of the other things -- suicides, injuries, the humongous stupendous cost to the economy of gunshot wounds and firearms cirme ... a few brazillion horrible moments, repeated over and over again.

And all because of the pig-ignorant selfishness of people who hide their complete disregard for the interests of anyone else behind antique words on antique paper written by people so long dead, whose ideas are so long past their sell-by date, that anyone who gave a shit about real people in this real world would die of shame to be seen doing it.

A complete lack of notice of the situations where guns play an important role in the saving of lives and prevention or suppression of crime and violence.

Yeah. Four hundred billion times a year was it, last year? Something like that. If you listen to the people with an agenda to shove down someone's throat.

Funny how the places like where I live where we don't have our fingers on our triggers every waking moment don't actually seem to have the crime and death rates one would expect to see in a population so sadly disarmed, if a fraction those numbers about gunz playing that big important role in saving and preventing and suppressing were actually true.

A complete lack of fairness.

Awwwww. Somebody's being mean to gun-heads. Awwwww. I think I'll go find a racist homophobic misogynist bigot to be nice to. It's the least I can do. Mustn't be mean to the pig-ignorant.

What the hell is this "fairness"? Who has said anything here about anyone who, and whose firearm, was "non involved"? No one, that's who. If your TV news station reports that a local factory went bankrupt, must it at the same time list all the factories in the county that did not go bankrupt that day? If a drunk kills someone, need it name all the drunks who did not kill someone? Fair and balanced to the point of insanity, I'd think. What the hell is not "fair" about reporting events? You want to report some different events, you feel right free, I'd say. Start your own thread. Have a picnic. Just cut the sophistry.

I feel for your inability to get beyond your fears.

I'd say I feel for your inability to engage in civil discourse, but I don't. I'll just point out to you that you're in the Guns forum, where the purported psychoanalyzing of strangers by the unqualified is regarded as the intentional insult (childish and pitiful though it is) that it is intended to be, and severely frowned upon.

[Tejas]

12. like a wild moose in a chandelier factory

antique words on antique paper written by people so long dead, whose ideas are so long past their sell-by date

What are you promoting this week, Anarchy?


Don't let the door hit ya.........




(googles "civil discourse" to see how the F-bomb adds to civility of a conversation)

[gorfle]

16. No, she's promoting being defenseless.

What are you promoting this week, Anarchy?

No, Iverglas is promoting being defenseless. She has already said she does not believe the time for armed rebellion will ever be upon us, in spite of the fact that it is currently going on around the world right now as we speak. She has already said she thinks it would be a terrible idea to provide arms to the millions of refugees currently fleeing oppression around the world, and seems to me to prefer instead that they rely on the mercy of international aid, and seems to me to be quite proud of her efforts to maintain their defenselessness and reliance on external aid.

What I believe is that people like Iverglas genuinely believe that in our "modern" civilization, with our current stable, representative governments, we will never again have the need for arms to resist tyranny and oppression. In fact, it is the lack of anarchy for beyond living memory that has lulled people like her into believing they will never be faced with it again. They believe that the ballot box will forevermore supplant the cartridge box.

Our founding fathers were highly skeptical of that idea, and with good reason - they had to claw their way out from under oppression themselves by force of arms. People like Iverglas seem to think their ideas antiquated - but only because they can't seem to imagine having to fight oppression and tyranny by force of arms.

Moreover, I submit that with every year that goes by for the last 8, our own government has seemed to grow ever more authoritarian and restrictive and intrusive on our personal liberties. If I had to say what the trend for us was right now, I'd say we were headed towards tyranny, not away from it. Hopefully the next election will show that the ballot box still works and the pendulum can be pushed the other way for a while.

[gorfle]

15. I care, and here's why.

Who the fuck cares how many guns and gun owners were "non involved"? What does that have to do with anything at all?

It's simple. People like you and the rest of the anti-gun folks point to these 800,000 bad things that happen with firearms every year and scream it at the top of your lungs as justification for restricting the right to keep and bear arms, in spite of the fact that these bad things account for less than 2% of all firearm owners and less than 1% of all firearms.

How about the several thousand gun owners whose several thousand guns were stolen in the last year, because they didn't have the common fucking decency to keep their firearms out of the hands of people who do use them for purposes like some of those described in this thread. Were they "non-involved"?

Assuming their stolen firearms were used to do "bad things", they are accounted for in the 2% of all firearm owners.

How about the undoubtedly several million gun owners whose guns are sitting on top of bookshelves (see other thread in this forum) or being played with by their 16-yr-old sons (ask google for Senator Bob Regola) ... all "non involved" until a five-yr-old gets hold of one of them and kills her little sister, or the 16-yr-old neighbour kid gets hold of one of them and kills himself? "Non-involved", are they?

They are non-involved until their behavior puts them in that 2% of firearm owners responsible for bad things.

Ten thousand "horrible moments" like these a year in the US -- if we count only firearms homicides. Start counting some of the other things -- suicides, injuries, the humongous stupendous cost to the economy of gunshot wounds and firearms cirme ... a few brazillion horrible moments, repeated over and over again.

No, more like 800,000, as I demonstrated. If you want to throw in unreported crime, I'll grant you a 100% increase, even though unreported crime is like 60-75%. Yup, those "brazillion" horrible moment - inflicted by some 3% of all firearm owners.

And all because of the pig-ignorant selfishness of people who hide their complete disregard for the interests of anyone else behind antique words on antique paper written by people so long dead, whose ideas are so long past their sell-by date, that anyone who gave a shit about real people in this real world would die of shame to be seen doing it.

There are some 10 million people in this world today driven from their homes and living at the mercy of international charity because they didn't have the ability to exercise those ideas "so long past their sell-by date". To me, selfishness is hiding in your cozy home behind your military telling the rest of the world, "So sorry, you can't have the tools to defend yourself against oppression - that's an antique idea!" If there's anyone who should be ashamed it's certainly not those of us who believe in the vision of our founding fathers. We believe in the vision of our founding fathers because we do give a shit about real people and believe that real people - all people - should have the means to secure their liberties by force in the face of oppression.

You've already rejected the idea that such need would ever happen here - an idea our founding fathers - arguably much smarter than you - rejected.

Yeah. Four hundred billion times a year was it, last year? Something like that. If you listen to the people with an agenda to shove down someone's throat.

Feel free to provide alternative data. How many defensive uses of firearms do you believe happen annually?

Funny how the places like where I live where we don't have our fingers on our triggers every waking moment don't actually seem to have the crime and death rates one would expect to see in a population so sadly disarmed, if a fraction those numbers about gunz playing that big important role in saving and preventing and suppressing were actually true.

And that is all well and good. But you also lack the means to resist tyranny from your government, which is the primary reason behind our second amendment right. You live and die at the mercy of your government, with no recourse should they stop listening to the will of the governed.

What the hell is this "fairness"? Who has said anything here about anyone who, and whose firearm, was "non involved"? No one, that's who. If your TV news station reports that a local factory went bankrupt, must it at the same time list all the factories in the county that did not go bankrupt that day?

No, but if you are trying to paint a dire economic forecast you can't point to one or two bankrupt factories and claim that there is a huge factory bankruptcy problem. If you do otherwise, expect to be called on it.

If a drunk kills someone, need it name all the drunks who did not kill someone?

No, but if you are trying to paint a dire picture of epidemic drunk driving, you can't point to one or two drunk drivers who kill people and claim there is a drunk driving problem. But even when there is a drunk driving problem, I'll point out, you don't ban alcohol or cars, do you? Of course not. You punish the people who committed the crime, and let the rest of the responsible people carry on.

Fair and balanced to the point of insanity, I'd think. What the hell is not "fair" about reporting events?

What is not fair is when you try and make the case that some huge thing is happening based on a few events happening. That is called biased reporting, and that's not fair.

I'd say I feel for your inability to engage in civil discourse, but I don't. I'll just point out to you that you're in the Guns forum, where the purported psychoanalyzing of strangers by the unqualified is regarded as the intentional insult (childish and pitiful though it is) that it is intended to be, and severely frowned upon.

To quote you, Iverglass, "Awwwww".

[57_TomCat]

17. Thanks...

You said it well and unfortunatly some other people will continue to deny their own bias.

[iverglas]

18. ah, the voice of the proud gun-luvver is heard in the land

or not.

Some people will contnue to be unable to speak for themselves, obviously.

[57_TomCat]

25. Others will continue to speak without..

saying anything.

[gorfle]

3. 10 examples of the 2% of firearm incidents annually

Annually there are some 800,000 firearm incidents reported, including suicide, murder, robberies, aggravated assaults, rape, and sexual assault.

Even if unreported crime is 100%, and we say there are 1,600,000 firearm incidents a year, the percentage is of firearms and firearm owners involved in crime are still astonishingly low.

1,600,000 firearm incidents out of 50,000,000 firearm owners: 3.2%
1,600,000 firearm incidents out of 250,000,000 firearms: 0.64%

If we use the 80,000,000 firearm owner figure often cited, the percentage drops to 2%

So even if there are twice as many crimes as reported, the fact is the overwhelming majority of firearm owners - 96.8%+, and the overwhelming majority of firearms - 99.36% - are not involved in crime.

Even if there were five times the amount of firearm incidents as reported, it would still be a drop in the bucket compared to the number of owners and firearms that are not involved in crime.

So today there may be 10 bad things that happened with firearms. The other 49,999,999,990 firearm owners and 249,999,990 firearms continued to do nothing wrong.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

6. Thoughts and Prayers to the victims and the families of the lost.

I hope the criminals who committed most of these acts are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I hope the adults that accidently shot themselves take a firearms safety course before deciding to handle anymore firearms.

David

[57_TomCat]

9. I quite agree. / NT

[solinvictus]

13. What about...

...America's Bloody Highways or America's Daily Medical Mistakes or some such. Cars and medical mistakes kill more people than gunshot wounds. Ban automobiles and physicians; that's my solution. I'd make a mandatory five day waiting period to see a primary care physician with a national registration required to approve surgeries. It's for the kids, you know.

[iverglas]

14. okay, what about

We've had some number crunching goin on here recently.

Some will acknowledge that nearly 2% of firearms owners (by dividing estimated number of firearms owners by number of reported violent firearms crimes) are involved in a violent firearm crime in a year.

I'll take the figures for the sake of argument, and say for the same purpose that some of the crimes represent mutiple offences by single people.

So let's say 1 in 100 firearms owners is involved in a violent firearm crime in a year.

There are those here who are saying this fraction is SMALL.

Are 1 in 100 motor vehicle owners/operators involved in violent motor vehicle crimes in a year?

Are 1 in 100 skateboard owners involved in violent skateboard crimes in a year?

Are in 1 in 100 household pools the site of forcible drownings in a year?


Frankly, I think this is a bit silly, because I doubt that 1 in 100 firearms owners is involved in a *reported* firearms crime in a year.

I just think anybody presenting 2% or even 1% as a SMALL fraction of a population, when we're talking about the commission of violent crimes, isn't really using his/her noggin.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. No one said that 1 or 2 % of gun owners was committing violent crime.

I'm pretty sure you are well aware of that. So I think you may be trying to mislead here. Regardless 1% is by definition a small fraction 1/100. You know that accidents and guns being stolen and used by criminals were included in gorfle stats. So why do you choose to say 1 in 100 motor vehicle owners/operators involved in violent motor vehicle crimes? Again just a slight misrepresentation something a lot of people might not catch, but it appears to be there.

David

[iverglas]

21. Look. I'm sorry.

No one said that 1 or 2 % of gun owners was committing violent crime.

If you are really this far behind in the discussion, well, let us know when you catch up.

Meanwhile, don't be telling me that something I said is false when it isn't.

[gorfle]

27. I said it.

I came up with the 2% number.

For some time now BenEzra has been quick to provide FBI statistics that demonstrate homicide statistics by weapon type, and has repeatedly shown that rifles of all kinds are hardly ever used for murder - even less than hands and feet. This of course blows the whole need for assault rifle bans right out of the water.

Of course then folks like Iverglas began to suggest that, well, even if firearms are only used for 10,000 or so murders annually, they are really used a lot more for doing bad things.

So I went and dug up statistics for all the bad things I could find ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=162967#163046 ). Based on what I found, I came up with about 800,000 bad firearm incidents a year, including suicide, murder, robberies, aggravated assaults, rape, and sexual assault.

Assuming each bad firearm incident is only done by one firearm owner, and by one firearm, and assuming there are 50 million firearm owners (there could be as many as 80 million) and 250 million firearms in circulation, we come up with 0.32% of firearms being used to do bad things by 1.6% of firearm owners.

Next, folks like Iverglas challenged this number by saying that there had to be lots of unreported crime. So I dug around and found a citation that claimed that 60-75% of crimes go unreported.

If we assume 100% underreporting, we basically double the amount of firearms and people doing bad things - still a trivial 3.2% of firearm owners and 0.64% of firearms.

So there you have it.

All this angst and animosity when every year probably over 97% of firearm owners and over 99% of firearms are never used to do bad things.

Each year 48,500,000 firearm owners and 247,500,000 firearms don't do bad things.

And ever year some 48 million potential voters get very upset when the legislature attempts to penalize them for the actions of the other 3%.

[iverglas]

29. and to make it perfectly clear

If we assume 100% underreporting, we basically double the amount of firearms and people doing bad things - still a trivial 3.2% of firearm owners and 0.64% of firearms.

1. The percentage of firearms involved in crime is of no interest.

2. What I said in this thread, and what I can't for the life of me understand anyone getting hot and bothered about or wanting to pretend I didn't say in the first place, is:

I think yourr estimate of the proportion of firearms owners involved in firearms-related crime is an overestimate, and possibly a gross overestimate.

I don't think that 1 in 50 firearms owners is involved in a *reported* firearms-related crime in a year. I think that probably a considerably lower proportion of firearms owners is involved in a reported firearms-related crime in a year.

One reason for this would be that I suspect that there are quite a few people who are involved in more than one firearms-related crime in a year.

But I can't say. I don't have any kind of gut feeling for levels of firearms-related crime and numbers of crime-involved individuals in the population in the US that would give me a reliable gut reaction to the idea of 1 in 50 firearms owners (or 1 in 100) being involved in a firearms-related crime in a year. I'd wonder what proportion of the general population is involved in crime, and violent crime, in a year, as a basis for comparison, for starters.

Be that as it may -- my statement is not a problem for anyone who opposes firearm control, as far as I can see. Some might even interpret it as a statement against my own interests, although I don't, since I haven't based any argument on any such figures.

I'm just seeing some bizarre knee jerking by one or more people who decided to reply to something they imagined I said rather than to what I said. This truly is one of the more bizarre examples of this well-known phenomenon.


What I do say is:

1. If the proportion of the firearms-owning population that is involved in firearms-related crime in a year is anywhere near the figures suggested, that is NOT "trivial". One in 50 or 100 owners of anything using that thing to commit violent crimes is in fact a staggering idea.

Nonetheless, the fact is that the population that is doing that is generally distinguishable from the broader population of firearms owners, and no one has ever suggested that the calculation of any ratio like this is of any special significance in relation to firearms policy.

The issue is not what proportion of firearms owners commit violent crimes; that issue is purely an invention of firearms control opponents. The issue is how best to reduce the harms and risks associated with firearms ownership.

2. Reported firearms crime is not, by itself, a measure of the harms and risks associated with widespread firearms ownership in a population.

There is little point in elaborating on #2, frankly. Given the failure of anyone to address my question of why drug dealers acquire and are not uncommonly found in possession of AK-47s, for instance, I do not expect any sincere discussion of this point.

[gorfle]

30. No interest?

1. The percentage of firearms involved in crime is of no interest.

It is of great interest to the other 98%+ of us whose rights people like you are trying to restrict based on the actions of the other 2%.

I think yourr estimate of the proportion of firearms owners involved in firearms-related crime is an overestimate, and possibly a gross overestimate.

Wonderful. Thanks for the concession. That means that an even fewer body of firearms and firearm owners are involved in crime.

I'm just seeing some bizarre knee jerking by one or more people who decided to reply to something they imagined I said rather than to what I said. This truly is one of the more bizarre examples of this well-known phenomenon.

When I first read your original post I thought you meant the overestimate was in your favor - and that in fact even more firearms and firearm owners were involved in crime. My mistake.


1. If the proportion of the firearms-owning population that is involved in firearms-related crime in a year is anywhere near the figures suggested, that is NOT "trivial". One in 50 or 100 owners of anything using that thing to commit violent crimes is in fact a staggering idea.

But it's not staggering enough to impose restrictions on the other 249 million people who are not involved in violent crimes with their firearms. Especially given the intended power that The People wield through them, as our founding fathers intended.

Nonetheless, the fact is that the population that is doing that is generally distinguishable from the broader population of firearms owners, and no one has ever suggested that the calculation of any ratio like this is of any special significance in relation to firearms policy.

I am suggesting it. And you are being painted into a corner by it. First it was, "Oh Oh! We have to ban these terrible assault weapons!". Then we point out that rifles of all kinds are hardly ever used for murder. Then it was "Oh Oh! But these guns are really being used for lots of other bad things besides murder!" And now it's been established that all firearms only account for some 800,000 bad things a year.

Not only is this number small in comparison to all the other bad things that happen every year, like drunk driving, or any number of things, it is also small in comparison to all the responsible firearm owners in this country.

Why on Earth would you base firearm policy on the actions of 2% of firearm owners, when it is the 98% of the rest of them that will feel the burden of the policy changes?

The only people who would advocate such actions are people who put the pursuit of safety concerning those 800,000 incidents above the essential liberties of those 249,000,000.

This idea of course flies in the face of the ideas of the people who founded this nation.

The issue is not what proportion of firearms owners commit violent crimes; that issue is purely an invention of firearms control opponents. The issue is how best to reduce the harms and risks associated with firearms ownership.

And any such policies to reduce the harms and risks associated with firearms ownership must necessarily be weighed against the impact of the 249,000,000 law-abiding firearm owners vs. the 800,000 non-law-abiding firearm owners.

Moreover, any such policies aimed at reducing those 800,000 criminal actions every year must be weighed against the impact on the ability of the other 249,000,000 firearm owners to remain a counter to federal military power, as is the intent of our second amendment.

2. Reported firearms crime is not, by itself, a measure of the harms and risks associated with widespread firearms ownership in a population.

And here we go moving the goal posts again. Time and time again you and your cohorts have attempted to broaden the scope of the of the harms and risks associated with widespread firearms ownership in a population. And every time it has been demonstrated that the harms are caused by a very few numbers of firearm owners.

First it was murders. Then it was robberies, rapes, assaults, and other bad things. Now we are moving on to another set of bad things. All to the point of trying to show this huge problem of firearm ownership that warrants more restrictions on their ownership.

The worst part is that people like me have to keep doing your damn homework for you! You keep making these assertions to paint a dire picture to justify your anti-gun agenda, and then people like me, BenEzra, and others have to keep going and doing the research to demonstrate that the picture isn't that dire after all. I know, I know. "Awwwwww".

So please do us a favor. Next time you want to move the goal posts and make a claim about the harms and risks associated with firearms ownership in a population, please quantify your assertions.

There is little point in elaborating on #2, frankly.

You're probably right about that. You're probably going to find, upon elaboration, that once again, compared to the overwhelming majority of firearm owners who don't get involved in criminal activity there is no justification for further infringements of their rights.

Given the failure of anyone to address my question of why drug dealers acquire and are not uncommonly found in possession of AK-47s, for instance, I do not expect any sincere discussion of this point.

Yeah, we keep hearing about this AK-47 epidemic among gang-bangers and drug dealers, but their usage doesn't show up significantly in the crime statistics. Odd that.

[Irreverend IX]

31. "Assuming each bad firearm incident is only done by one firearm owner"

This is where the problem lies. The warring gang members who commit the lion's share of gun crimes don't limit themselves to one offense a year.

[gorfle]

32. No doubt.

My numbers were intentionally conservative. For example, I only allowed for 50 million firearm owners, when there are some estimates as high as 80 million.

Like you say - if we assume that many of the bad things done every year are done by the same person and/or firearm, then that means that the pool of firearms and firearm owners doing bad things is even smaller than 1% and 2% respectively.

But then we have to account for unreported crime. So it's probably a wash.

[gorfle]

20. On number crunching.

So let's say 1 in 100 firearms owners is involved in a violent firearm crime in a year.

There are those here who are saying this fraction is SMALL.

Are 1 in 100 motor vehicle owners/operators involved in violent motor vehicle crimes in a year?

In 2000, there were 190,625,023 licensed drivers ( http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/onh2p4.htm ). Also in 2000, there were 41,945 traffic fatalities ( http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx ). This works out to about .02 fatalities per 100 licensed drivers.

I could not find national data on automobile crime rates, let alone violent motor vehicle crime. I did find that the city of Burlinton, Wisconsin had about 1,200 moving violations in a year. There are approximately 30,000 incorporated cities in the United States. Assuming 1000 moving violations per incorporated city, this works out to 30,000,000 moving violations across the United States. This works out to about 15 motor vehicle crimes per 100 licensed drivers per year.

Are 1 in 100 skateboard owners involved in violent skateboard crimes in a year?

I couldn't find any data on violent skateboard crime. In one very anecdotal case I discovered, in 1994 there were 500 skateboard crimes in one city, and after two years of opening a skateboard park that dropped to 50, with some 7000 people utilizing the park. Based on this very limited example, they had 7.1 crimes per 100 people before the skate park, and .71 crimes per 100 people afterwards.

Are in 1 in 100 household pools the site of forcible drownings in a year?

I could not find national data on forcible drownings. I found there are some 8.6 million swimming pools in the United States, and that there are some 4000-5000 drownings annually. This would be .05 drownings per 100 pools. Since most drownings are likely not "forcible", I'd say there were virtually no "forcible drownings" in swimming pools.

Frankly, I think this is a bit silly, because I doubt that 1 in 100 firearms owners is involved in a *reported* firearms crime in a year.

So how many firearm owners do you think are involved in crimes each year, and what are your sources for this belief?

But I agree, it is a bit silly to compare automobiles, skateboards, and swimming pools to a tool capable of providing liberty.

I just think anybody presenting 2% or even 1% as a SMALL fraction of a population, when we're talking about the commission of violent crimes, isn't really using his/her noggin.

I think anyone who wants to infringe on the rights of 79,200,000 law-abiding people because of the misdeeds of 800,000 criminals really isn't using his/her nogin. It certainly isn't worth restricting the ability of the people to resist tyranny and oppression as our founding fathers intended.

[iverglas]

22. calm yourself

So how many firearm owners do you think are involved in crimes each year, and what are your sources for this belief?

I would really have thought it apparent from what I said, but I think the estimates being used here are inflated. I would be quite surprised to find that 1 in 100 firearms owners in the US (or closer to 2, per your or whoever it was's figures) is involved in a reported firearms crime in a year. I might even say grossly inflated estimate.

But then I never suggested I was particularly interested in that kind of figure in the first place.


Now, you justkeep on dribbling about tyranny and oppression while your government tyrannizes and oppresses a few more small foreign countries and murders a few thousand more of those foreigners you are so very very very worried about, 'k? I wouldn't want to spoil your fun. You got plannin' to do, for when oppression of somebody that matters to you ... like, uh, you ... happens.

It really is kinda funny. There yo are huffing and puffing yourself up into a right state of pretend righteous indignation about all the poor refugees in the world and how they don't got no gunz.

And there's your government being the very cause of the misery of so many people in the world, and there's you with the gunz ... and what's wrong with this picture??

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

23. Typical back up say you didn't mean what you said blah blah blah.

Double talk every time you get caught.

david

[57_TomCat]

24. That is a very consistent pattern eh? n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

28. yeah, eh.

[gorfle]

26. I'm quite calm, thanks.

Now, you justkeep on dribbling about tyranny and oppression while your government tyrannizes and oppresses a few more small foreign countries and murders a few thousand more of those foreigners you are so very very very worried about, 'k? I wouldn't want to spoil your fun. You got plannin' to do, for when oppression of somebody that matters to you ... like, uh, you ... happens.

It really is kinda funny. There yo are huffing and puffing yourself up into a right state of pretend righteous indignation about all the poor refugees in the world and how they don't got no gunz.

And there's your government being the very cause of the misery of so many people in the world, and there's you with the gunz ... and what's wrong with this picture??

We've had this discussion before, Iverglas. What is "wrong" with this picture is presently not enough people in this country are angry enough to engage in armed rebellion. Moreover, people still believe in the system and have hope that it is possible to change.

Be thankful for it, Iverglas, and don't chastise or goad to harshly or you may get what you wish for. Armed rebellion in the United States would likely bring the western hemisphere and possibly the world into absolute chaos. I am not one of those who watches "Rambo" and slaps himself on the thigh saying, "Yeah man! That's the way to stick it to the MAN!" Civil war would absolutely destroy our way of life and with the way we have alienated most of the world there would be no shortage of people willing to jump in and take the opportunity to get their punches in while we crumble. Yet for all of the consequences it would still be preferable to living under tyranny and in any case it is exactly that threat of complete destruction that serves as the final encouragement for our government to listen to the will of the people, provided the people retain the will to exercise that final option and do not succumb to apathy and distraction.

There's nothing pretend about my righteous indignation about all the refugees in the world defenseless to resist the powers that oppress them, nor about the people who encourage and enable it. And the fact that my country is responsible for much of the oppression going on in the world today does not change my wish that all people suffering under oppression have the means to resist it.

[TomHansley]

33. 769 Automobile deaths happened in the last week in the US...

BAN AUTOMOBILES!!!

THESE DEATHS HAPPEN DAILY!

40,000 people will die in automobile accidents this year... lets ban them and walk, think of the children!

/sarcasm