Gun Violence Statistics And What They Tell Me

3 Responses to Gun Violence Statistics And What They Tell Me

1. 

   Bret on October 1, 2009 at 3:30 pm

   Not knocking your stats, but it's amazing how the same gun stat can be quoted by NRA and Brady and serve both their purposes. I think every gun stat needs several paragraphs explaining the numbers because words like "weapon" (i.e. only guns not knives or blunt instruments), "violent" (i.e. only acts ending in death rather then injury), "crime" (i.e. only crimes found guilty), etc. can be reported way different then you would assume. The one thing I do tend to find is the 2nd Amendment supporters tend to be more inclusive in their stats then gun control supporters. I've seen a few anti-gun stats that turned out to only consider one type of gun act on one type of crime and label it a general "gun violence" stat.

   ugg, openID gives me an error, so i'll be anon for now.

   Reply
   • 

     Rick Shaw on October 22, 2009 at 1:49 pm

     True and I’m sure it’s like that most times statistics are used to support a particular position.

     What’s really interesting about the initial discussion that instigated the post is that she’s European and didn’t grow up around guns at all. Therefore handgun ownership for self defense is a foreign and somewhat boggling concept for her. I don’t mean this in a flippant way, she just doesn’t understand the justification. To me it’s obvious–if someone breaks into my home I want to be able to defend myself and whoever else may be in my home, with an appropriate level of force. To her a handgun only leads to another’s death, regardless of justification. That’s undoubtably a product of a more liberal, European culture, reinforced by a liberal family setting, etc.

     Another example to illustrate this; When I was doing some work in London, a good friend from London was asking me the size of a particular hole in a server rack and I said ‘it looks like it’s about 9mm’ and he asked how I figured and I said ‘it looks about the size of a 9mm round’ and his immediate reply was something along the lines of ‘I wouldn’t even want to have that knowledge.’

     I often wonder if the American fascination (for lack of a better term) with handguns is due to the ‘newness’ of our country, which was formed by armed revolution and the culture of the wild west that has morphed into what Michael Moore would describe as a gun culture woven into pop culture.

     But whatever the underlying cause, my point remains; it’s human nature to fight and kill each other. If we don’t do it with guns, we’ll do it with whatever is at hand. Therefore gun control is ineffective at controlling violence. Money and energy would be better spent reinforcing the stable family unit, community participation and cohesiveness, etc.

     Reply
2. 

   Tarz on March 10, 2011 at 3:21 pm

   Right! I think that the explaination of our fasination with guns becomes a lot less important if someone breaks into your home and threatens your family. I for one would rather have a gun and not use it that not have it.
   I often wonder about gun control folks, the celebrites and politicos among them speak against guns then hire men with guns to protect them. Maybe not considering that the regular people have a right to protect themselves too, but can't afford a bodyguard.
   People who commit crimes simply don't care about gun laws. And, does anyone really think that a shooter intent on killing people and himself first considers the legality of using a gun?
   If all the guns in the US were taken away were made unlawful, if every gun were found and destroyed, criminals would be ok with that, because they would simply make some, and regular people would have none. A fortune would be made selling homemade guns to stoners and such.
   Guns are not very hard to make and you can bet enterprising criminals would learn fast.Crimes of passion or emotion will continue with or without guns.
   It seems to me that anti-gun people are honest in their beliefs, but not so much in their thinking.

   Reply