Home > Archive > Cobol > January 2005 > OT: "Right to bear arms"
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
OT: "Right to bear arms"
|
|
| Howard Brazee 2005-01-07, 8:55 pm |
|
On 7-Jan-2005, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
> It's too much work for an off-topic discussion. I did an analysis 15
> years ago that found guns do more damage than they prevent.
Which has nothing to do with our right to bear arms, unless your analysis
evaluated our need for a regulated militia. The 2nd amendment isn't about
protecting ourselves from muggers.
I suppose one could do an analysis that shows that cars cause more damage than
they prevent. But our reason for having cars isn't to prevent damage.
| |
|
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 7-Jan-2005, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Which has nothing to do with our right to bear arms, unless your analysis
> evaluated our need for a regulated militia. The 2nd amendment isn't about
> protecting ourselves from muggers.
But this is an argument *for* an armed populace, meant to counter the
arguments that it's only the army that needs guns. Both arguments, as
you've previously stated, are irrelevant regarding the 2nd amendment.
It says what it says.
> I suppose one could do an analysis that shows that cars cause more damage than
> they prevent. But our reason for having cars isn't to prevent damage.
But for teenagers, not having cars would prevent a *lot* of damage! :)
(Yes, I know - I'm not saying take 'em away from them - you've got to
learn to drive at some point... I just remember damage inflicted by a
somewhat younger, less wise version of myself...)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| Robert Wagner 2005-01-08, 3:55 am |
| On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 20:47:53 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:
>On 7-Jan-2005, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>
>Which has nothing to do with our right to bear arms, unless your analysis
>evaluated our need for a regulated militia. The 2nd amendment isn't about
>protecting ourselves from muggers.
True, but gun advocates advance arguments based on economic analysis.
I think it's a rational approach. Granted, it doesn't cover
low-probability, long-term effects such as subjugation to a tyrannical
government.
That was a major concern when the Bill of Rights was written. It is
not today, thanks to other Constitutional provisions. If we think the
Feds are out of line, we can vote them out of office.
>I suppose one could do an analysis that shows that cars cause more damage than
>they prevent. But our reason for having cars isn't to prevent damage.
The economic benefit from cars far exceeds the economic cost from
accidents, including accidental deaths. By coincidence, the death toll
from cars and guns is the same: 30,000 Americans per year. The
benefit of cars is obvious; the benefit of letting Bubba own a deer
rifle, and 30 other Bubbas owning illegal unregistered guns, is not so
obvious. Especially when they use the weapons against each other more
than against deer.
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2005-01-10, 3:55 pm |
| In article <455ut0hm1mcvglaipc2gk9jvjarf9o4a3u@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 20:47:53 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> True, but gun advocates advance arguments based on economic analysis.
> I think it's a rational approach. Granted, it doesn't cover
> low-probability, long-term effects such as subjugation to a tyrannical
> government.
>
> That was a major concern when the Bill of Rights was written. It is
> not today, thanks to other Constitutional provisions. If we think the
> Feds are out of line, we can vote them out of office.
>
>
> The economic benefit from cars far exceeds the economic cost from
> accidents, including accidental deaths. By coincidence, the death toll
> from cars and guns is the same: 30,000 Americans per year. The
> benefit of cars is obvious; the benefit of letting Bubba own a deer
> rifle, and 30 other Bubbas owning illegal unregistered guns, is not so
> obvious. Especially when they use the weapons against each other more
> than against deer.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics list firearms as responsible for 2/3rds
of 2003 homicides here
"http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm".
It also lists a homicide rate of 6.1 per 100,000 for 2000 (I excluded
the 2001 numbers because the 9/11 bombings skewed them). You can find
that number here "http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm".
The population of the US was 281 million in 2000 -- which leads us to a
figure of 17,141 homicides in the US for 2000 (281M/100K * 6.1).
Again, using the official crime statistics, we find that 11,484 of those
homicides were committed with a firearm (17,141*.67).
For your number of 30k/year to be accurate, you would need 18,516
accidental deaths from firearms. You can find the number of accidental
firearms deaths here -- claiming census bureau figures from 1999 --
"http://www.anesi.com/accdeath.htm". The put the accidental deaths at
1,134, with no idea how many of those might have been suicides.
You your 30k number is left with a deficit of 17,382 firearms deaths.
You have managed to overstate by almost three times the number of annual
firearms deaths -- is it possible you have some sort of agenda rather
than an interest in the facts?
[
You could argue (and you probably will), that firearms deaths that are
ruled suicides make up your 17k shortfall. However, to argue such would
be as disingenuous as lumping 19-year-old gang members shooting each
other in with "children" to secure a properly horrific figure.
We know from long study that access to a firearm might influence the
style of suicide -- but removing the firearm from a suicidal person only
shifts them to another tool. In short, guns don't cause suicide,
dysfunctional people who cannot or will not cope with their problems do.
Unless you want Rope-control, Car-control, Knife-control, Pill-control,
etc...
]
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-01-10, 3:55 pm |
|
On 10-Jan-2005, Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
> We know from long study that access to a firearm might influence the
> style of suicide -- but removing the firearm from a suicidal person only
> shifts them to another tool. In short, guns don't cause suicide,
> dysfunctional people who cannot or will not cope with their problems do.
> Unless you want Rope-control, Car-control, Knife-control, Pill-control,
> etc...
I for one prefer to separate suicide from other firearms deaths when analyzing
the costs. People with agendas often fail to realize that when they get caught
with less than useful figures, often get discounted altogether.
| |
| Robert Wagner 2005-01-10, 3:55 pm |
| On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:00:48 -0500, Joe Zitzelberger
<joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>The Bureau of Justice Statistics list firearms as responsible for 2/3rds
>of 2003 homicides here
>"http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm".
>
>It also lists a homicide rate of 6.1 per 100,000 for 2000 (I excluded
>the 2001 numbers because the 9/11 bombings skewed them). You can find
>that number here "http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm".
>
>The population of the US was 281 million in 2000 -- which leads us to a
>figure of 17,141 homicides in the US for 2000 (281M/100K * 6.1).
>
>Again, using the official crime statistics, we find that 11,484 of those
>homicides were committed with a firearm (17,141*.67).
>
>For your number of 30k/year to be accurate, you would need 18,516
>accidental deaths from firearms. You can find the number of accidental
>firearms deaths here -- claiming census bureau figures from 1999 --
>"http://www.anesi.com/accdeath.htm". The put the accidental deaths at
>1,134, with no idea how many of those might have been suicides.
>
>You your 30k number is left with a deficit of 17,382 firearms deaths.
>You have managed to overstate by almost three times the number of annual
>firearms deaths -- is it possible you have some sort of agenda rather
>than an interest in the facts?
The Centers for Disease Control reported:
Overall, 30,708 people died of firearms in 1998, a 5-percent drop from
1997 and a 22-percent drop from the high of 39,595 in 1993.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/0...inaldeath98.htm
New data from the federal Centers for Disease Control show gun deaths
continue to decline in the U.S., especially among children and
teenagers. The 1999 gun-death toll was 28,874 persons, the first time
the figure has dropped below 30,000 since national statistics on gun
deaths were first kept in 1979.
http://www.jointogether.org/gv/issu...issues/decline/
>You could argue (and you probably will), that firearms deaths that are
>ruled suicides make up your 17k shortfall.
Yes, that's the explanation. There are 30,000 annual suicides in the
US, of which 55% used a gun. That's another 16,500.
>However, to argue such would
>be as disingenuous as lumping 19-year-old gang members shooting each
>other in with "children" to secure a properly horrific figure.
I agree that it's misleading to include teenagers (under 17 or 18) in
the 5,000 deaths of 'children'. The actual number of little children
is fewer than 100.
>We know from long study that access to a firearm might influence the
>style of suicide -- but removing the firearm from a suicidal person only
>shifts them to another tool. In short, guns don't cause suicide,
>dysfunctional people who cannot or will not cope with their problems do.
>Unless you want Rope-control, Car-control, Knife-control, Pill-control,
>etc...
The number of unsuccessful suicide attempts is 250,000. In other
words, only 11% are successful. Guns have a higher success rate than
most tools.
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2005-01-10, 8:55 pm |
|
"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:ria5u0lq88v8632107d0kmf5hanchm5dvn@
4ax.com...
> The number of unsuccessful suicide attempts is 250,000. ...
> Guns have a higher success rate than most tools.
Just as a matter of curiosity: Should I regard this as an argument
*against* gun control? ;-)
-Chuck Stevens
|
|
|
|
|