Gun Control/Is the US more violent than Europe?

[sgtmac_46]

Here's an interesting tid-bit. If we listen to certain special interest groups and the media, guns are the greatest danger to small children in existence. The reality, however, that a backyard swimming pool is 100 times more dangerous to a child than a gun in the house. If you have a child under 10, they are at 100 times greater risk of dying as a result of the pool, than as a result of the gun.

http://www.bookofjoe.com/2005/05/behindthemedspe_21.html
http://www.guncite.com/triggerkopel.html

Interesting equation he uses 'perceived risk = harzard + outrage' Guns are perceived, emotionally, by the public as more hazardous, and, therefore, they get the (misplaced) outrage. The actual hazards are far more dangerous, and far less respected. People that think nothing of demanding surprise home inspections by the government to check your gun locks, would be OUTRAGED if the government showed up to check their pool.

In the interest of full disclosure, HCI claims there are '5,285 child deaths' every year.

"In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States"

They then go on to say "In the United States, young children die or are badly injured because their parents or other gun owners don't store their firearms properly, and children find loaded guns and use them unintentionally on themselves or other children."

Now, what did they say? It would seem they are telling us that 5,285 'young children die...because their parents or other gun owners don't store their guns properly'. However, that's not what they said. Notice the subtle change from 'children' to 'very young children'. Yet, they don't give a statistic for the number of 'young children' killed in the manner described.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=kids

It's interesting, however, to note how they arrived at those numbers. When I say 'child', it is assumed we mean what we commonly call a child, a pre-adolescent.

HCI, however, for the sake of 'cooking the books' to pump up the emotional impact of their position, includes EVERYbody between 0 and 19, in some cases 24, that died as a result of a handgun injury. This includes gang members, who shot each other, armed robbers shot by police, burglars shot by homeowners.

See the switch and bait, they us 'child' to describe one group of numbers, then quickly insert 'young children' without clarifying the distinction. They also give no statistics for the number of 'young children' who are killed as they describe. The number of actual young children who die as a result of firearms accidents described under the heading 'young children die or are badly injured' is significantly less than 100 year, not the grossly distorted '5,285 per year' cited previously.

Now, honestly, do we really consider a 19 year old career criminal, who got shot by the police after robbing a liquor store 'a child'? Is that being honest to make us think you are talking about thing, when you are really using statistics for another?

HCI and the Brady's use the heading "Sensible Gun Laws Save Lives", yet, is it really sensible if they have to lie (excuse me, distort the truth) to arrive at it?

Even if we adjust the statistics to include everyone up to and including 17, we don't arrive at the distorted figures shown by HCI and others. The CDC says that in 1999 1776 total deaths of children, 0 to 17, occurred, with many of the deaths involving males between 14 and 17 involved in some level of criminal activity. The only way that HCI approachs the grossly distorted figure is, again, by including 18 and 19 year olds, who account for 1609 deaths alone, most as the result of criminal activity.

Even this only yields 3385, and the VAST majority of it, say 3300 of it or more, has nothing to do with the accidental deaths described in their heading.

http://www.tincher.to/deaths.htm

 

[sgtmac_46]

In conclusion to many of the above posts, I propose the theory that it is NOT the government response to crime, violent and otherwise, that determines whether it rises or falls, but the overall attitude toward crime and it's response on the local scale. Further, the community supports private ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens AND pushes law enforcement to aggressive prosecute known criminals who possess firearms.

A community that looks down on crime and criminals alike, and believes an individual citizen can and should defend themselves against crime, and further, shuns those involved in criminal activity, will have a far lower rate of crime, both violent and non-violent.

On the other hand, you can contrast that with a community that believes crime is a social problem, and believes that what criminals need is more money and more social programs, along with counselling.

That coupled with the idea that all citizens should be disarmed, because a woman who gets mugged and shot is no different than a robber who gets shot committing a crime, because they are both citizens. (besides, we can't trust 'these people' with guns.)

That community will likely be subject to higher levels of crime, if for no other reason than the criminals have decided this is a preferable to place to live than the communities that had little tolerance for them.

There are those that will argue with my conclusions, but they certainly can't refute that it certainly appears to bear out.

Just a theory. I'll research it further.

As a side note, I might add this as a test you might try if you ever meet the rare representative of the law enforcement community who supports gun confiscation. Their theory will be that you are better off counting on the police to protect you. As a law enforcement officer myself, I can assure you that the vast majority of us will do eveything in our power to protect you.

However, try this....ask him if he can guarantee you an officer if you need one. He'll stutter on that one, and make some statement to the extent of 'we'll do everything in our power' or 'we'll certainly try'. They won't provide a guarantee, because there is none. The bottom line, you're counting on them probably getting there on time, but until then....you're on your own.

Personally, i'm not a big pusher of private ownership so I can own weapons myself, believe me. As a law enforcement officer, i'll continue to have access to weapons even long after the community has been disarmed. I could order 'assault rifles' and have them delivered to the police department, even during the assault weapons ban. Hi-capacity magazines? Not a problem, they were all marked 'Law Enforcement and Government Use Only". I could order them by the case. So, it's not my rights i'm pushing for.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't be diametrically opposed if they made fully automatic weapons legal to law abiding citizens, though this isn't likely and i'm not pushing for it.

Some might ask 'Aren't you afraid of having to face a criminal armed with an automatic weapon at work?' Actually, i've been of the opinion, if someone is going to shoot at me with a long gun, I HOPE it's a fully automatic rifle. Fully automatic weapons are notoriously inaccurate, even in trained hands, at anything but close range. In likelyhood, if someone shoots at me on full auto, they're going to miss.

Fully automatic (real) assault rifles serve two purposes as an infantry weapon, Fire Suppression against enemy positions and Close Quarters fighting, such as in a room. Intermediate and long range shooting at an actual target is FAR better done on semi-auto mode.

In Vietnam, the US military expended over 200,000 rounds for every enemy soldier killed. I'm not worried about a gang member with a fully automatic weapon...I'm worried about one who can actually shoot. I'll take a hardcore gang member, armed with a fully automatic AK-47, any day. Just hand me an 8 Shot M1 Garand rifle at 50 to 75 yards, and he's toast. I won't fire more than 3 shots. The first rule is, only hits count. Accuracy by volume doesn't work. Pick your shot, and don't worry how many rounds a minute he's pumping out. Put every round in his head or center mass.

Just look at the North Hollywood Shootout. Those guys were gutsy, and stayed cool, no doubt, but they weren't very well trained. They were blazing away, full auto, mostly from the hip. I'd have been more worried, however, if one of them starting picking his shots. Over 2,000 rounds fired by those two, and no body died but them. Now that's crappy shooting (thank god).