It’s mostly like a S&W .40 round, which is very popular with police agencies.
And those were just the first four I saw on Google.
Here is the actual search I used if you would like to read more for yourself.
So 24 million people are saved each year, on average, by private gun owners.
Saved? IMO, a life is saved when one is in imminent danger of death and is rescued in time.
Which 24 million Americans were about to lose their lives in 2002, and what exactly did private gun owners do to save them?
Never mind the bullshit about gun presence deterring criminals, unless you can cite a nationwide survey of burglars which reflects their beliefs about where they think they are most likely to be killed if they attempt a robbery.
Most of the stuff I’ve come across points out that burglars don’t strike when the gun owner is home, sitting up in bed with weapon poised, but when no one is home (duh) and the gun ends up stolen along with the rest of the property.
Does each of us owe our life to a private gun owner every 11 years? I myself have survived over three of these cycles. My life has been in danger once. The man who saved me did not do it with his gun. Therefore, it is possible that someone else has nearly died six times in the same span until someone shot their way out of the situation.
That’s one shitty life.
No. The initial assertion was that private gun ownership in America has lead to a lower crime rate than in comparable Western nations with tighter gun controls.
The Great Unwashed contended that this may be due to other factors, not simply private gun ownership.
Your cites may show the US can boast crime statistics more favourable than those experienced in other countries, but they don’t show a causal link between tighter gun controls and increased crime.
In fact, your third link contends that the US’s purported lower crime rate is due to tougher sentencing and laws, not gun control.
The first site tries to link weak gun control and high crime, but it fails to establish a causal link.
Moreover, its failure to cite Japan – a country with both low violent crime and low private gun ownership – exposes an obvious bias.
Good call. I asked him last night and that’s what it is.
Narrad: And HCI (and others) fail to mention something else about Japan: with roughly half of the U.S.A.'s population, Japan has a suicide rate equal to the U.S.A.'s. Just without guns.
Among other countries, this tends to indicate that there is no causal link between firearms ownership and suicide rates, even suicide rates by firearms; IOW, social factors may have more bearing on suicide rates among any given population than availability of firearms.
It’s not an altogether ridiculous leap of speculation to suggest that, quite possibly, socio-economic factors also have more to do with violent crime than mere availability of firearms.
Since a very healthy chunk of the U.S.A. owns firearms, and enjoys the various shooting sports safely and legally, perhaps a directed research effort into improving socio-economic conditions would have a greater impact on crime than gun control legislation, in which a causal link between gun ownership/availability and crime has also never been established.
Kellerman’s “43 times” and Brady’s “13 Children a day” notwithstanding.
Lott’s study, flawed though it may be, does attempt to take into account factors like police density for a given area, arrest rates, conviction rates, incarceration terms, the economic base, graduation rates from public schools, etc., as well as gun control laws and concealed carry laws.
Gun control is not the crime-stopping panacea gun controllers would like you to believe. Can enhanced gun control lead to a reduction in violent crime? After the National Firearms Act, The Gun Control Act, The Firearms Owner’s Protection Act, The federal Assault Weapons Ban, crime rates skyrocketed in the U.S.
The Omnibus Crime Control Bill, passed in '94, seems to have had some effect over the next six years. But that was also about the time the economy began rapidly improving, as well. Which did the job of lowering the violent crime rate to that of 1966? All of one, or the other? Some mix of the two? How to measure?
Simple answers rarely solve complex issues.