Well, as the figures I posted were for homicides, you know, like, as in “murders”, it kinda makes your argument a bit silly.
20,000 handgun killings per year? This cannot possibly be correct. According to various sources, including the ultra-alarmist site, bradycampaign.org, there were only a few more than 12,000 gun murders total (meaning all gun, not only handgun murders) in the U.S. in 1998. This number has remained relatively stable over the past several years and represents a large downturn over the decades previous.
Your number likely includes suicides committed by handgun which do not properly belong in this argument. There are many studies showing that suicide rates are unaffected by the availibility of handguns.
I’d also like to note those statistics which had everyone so angry and which were claimed to be NRA propaganda, while indeed the NRA has parroted them, they were initially culled from Australian newspapers. They were not originally generated by the NRA as has been implied here. A quick search of the NRA site will provide the relevant sources.
I can’t find the site on which I originally found the cite for 20k a year. I suspect you are right that the figure includes suicides, which is clearly a mistake on my part.
This admittedly Brady site suggests about 15,500 pa for all gun homicides (278,865 homicides 1979 - 1997).
This, probably more conservative and reliable site suggests about 11,000 gun homicides pa.
This DOJ cite mentions 10,600 handgun homicides as an 87-91 average.
I haven’t been able to locate many good handgun (as opposed to gun) statistics in the time available. However, Desmo’s cite above for California suggests about 90% of gun homocides are handgun homocides, and this and this suggest it is over and perhaps well over half of all gun deaths.
So I apologise for my mistake, but it doesn’t alter the thrust of my argument. Feel free to substitute 5-10,000 wherever I’ve put 20,000 in my previous posts. It’s still orders of magnitude ahead of bombs or power tools.
[flamebait]
Dear Australia:
We’ll send the residents of our inner city slums over to your country - hell, we’ll ask them to leave their guns here - and see how long it takes for your crime rate to surpass ours.
Thanks,
America
Seriously, the overwhelming majority of murder victims are gang members fighting amongst themselves. If we just wait a bit, the problem might solve itself…
[/flamebait]
Cite?
And the madness continues. Looks like fireworks might be the next to go…
They have been banned for many years in most states.
Dear gawd, you can’t play like Shogun with your samurai swords anymore; you can’t play with firecrackers. What DO you Aussies do for fun?
Of course, this does help explain Steve Irwin…
Just a point of clarification from the last page.
I have my degree, but I don’t practice law; I’m not a lawyer (insert sigh of relief here. :D)
PunditLisa: why, we watch American television, of course!
They swim PunditLisa, they swim.
Nope, you’ve got your degree, you’re a lawyer, you can’t run and you can’t hide. Now get up here and face the rotten tomatoes like a man, you coward! [sub]Don’t leave me here all alone. Please?[/sub]
Why does bearing the right to arms equate to freedom? There are many places in the world who are just as "free"as the US but they don’t consider guns or the right to bear them as part of the criteria.
Personally I am glad I live in a country where gun ownership is not seen as the litmus test for freedom.
Ahh, but can you legally wield samurai swords? That’s the question.
Eh… how free can you be when the state, the most historically oppressive force, in general, in human history, has a monopoly on arms and force?
And pray tell, Senor Beef? What country would you hold up as a model of freedom then, in the abscence of an “oppressive state”?
Straw man. The answer to your question is: pretty much as free as in a country where the state has an overwhelming strength in arms and force.
Such as in the United States.
Use of armed force against your legitimate government is generally regarded as either “regular” type crime or “terrorist” type crime. Some fuckwit in the U.S. with a handgun isn’t a “freedom fighter”, he’s just a plain old regular fuckwit with a handgun. :rolleyes:
Define fuckwit.
So during the United States’ War of Independence, were the militia members and minutemen “regular” criminals or “terrorists”?
It doesn’t. At least there’s more to it than simply “bearing arms.”
First of all, when we talk about arms we’re talking about preserving and defending liberty, not freedom. (There is a difference. Note that PH did not say, “Give me freedom or give me death.” It is possible to have freedom, but not liberty.) Secondly, “bearing arms” is only half the equation; you must also have the courage to use them. The latter is much more difficult to acquire.