A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:



BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
==================
The facts are quite clear: In nations where guns are banned,
victimization
by violent criminals increases dramatically. In the United States,
crime
victimization by violent criminals is dropping.
===============

I'll not dispute your sources and data.... except, as you well know,
because you presented this data, the definitions of various sorts of
crimes vary considerably from country to country. What may be deemed an
assault in one country may not be recorded as an assault in another.
Thus, the stats may not be comparable.

Talking about guns, one of the main issues that the NRA and similar
pro-gun organisations here wipe under the carpet is the counting of
bee-bee guns and air rifles under the "fire arms crimes" header in some
countries, that have relatively few firearms crimes overall.

Do you have proof of this? In most US communities, BB guns and air rifles
are classified as "deadly weapons," and even pointing one at someone can be
considered a felony menacing.


Thus, whether I'm trying to "bend" the debate is hardly the point. The
point is, more or less, a murder, is a murder, is a murder, no matter
where we are on the globe. Murder stats are comparable. The others
aren't.

If you're murdered, it doesn't really matter if you're shot, strangled,
stabbed or killed in one of the multitude of other ways that are
available.

Well, here we agree. The objective however is to AVOID being murdered, by
any implement. One of the best ways to do this is to carry, and be
proficient in the use of firearms, so that when attacked, you have force
superiority. In nearly 70 percent of cases in the US where a gun is used for
self-defense, no shots are ever fired, and the mere display or presence of
the firearm is sufficient to thwart the criminal attempt.

The thing with guns is that they make killing someone a lot
bigger, stronger or better able to fight hand to hand than you pretty
easy.

Indeed. That's the WHOLE POINT. A gun carried by grandma makes her the force
superior of the unarmed strongman after her Social Security check. And where
thugs know that the next random grandma they try to mug MIGHT have a handgun
in her purse, they tend to take up other, less dangerous lines of work.

That's where the U.S. outranks most western nations: the available
means to kill someone (i.e. guns) are available all over the place in
huge quantities and the people willing to use them are also plentiful.
The result is very high murder rates.

And much higher rates of self-defense use of arms to PREVENT crime
victimization. Estimates of the lawful use of firearms for self-defense vary
from the FBI approved number of more than 80,000 per year (which is almost
twice the incidence of violent assaults) to more than two million per year
by Kleck, Lott et al.

The true number is probably higher than two million because most
self-defense incidents that don't result in shots being fired are never
reported, and the statistics ignore the number of crimes that simply never
take place because lawful concealed carry creates a strong deterrent to
street crime.

So yes, you are sort of correct, but for the wrong reasons. Guns in the US
are used far, far more often for lawful self defense than they are in a
criminal episode, which is precisely the reason we so jealously guard the
individual's right to be armed for self defense.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser