I think therein lies the problem with the perceptions of gun ownership from those outside the USA. There are approximately 70 million gun owners in the USA. That figure is purportedly of law abiding citizens. There are no statistics per se that indicate what percentage of criminal types lawfully own firearms, since especially if they are a felon, they are not allowed to legally purchase or be in the house of a legally purchased firearm, as mentioned earlier in this thread.
Yeah, that number was just a WAG. But it’s got to be closser than the 10% 90%. If one in 10 gun owners commited gun crimes, there wouldn’t be anybody alive to commit gun crimes in pretty short order.
We see that in 1994 there were about 18,000 deaths from the criminal use of firearms
So while one in ten thousand may be pushing it, one million out of fourty four million means that 2.27% percent of gun owners used them for criminal purposes in 1994. That means more than 97% of gun owners were law abiding citizens. And that is assuming that criminals did not commit multiple crimes with their guns in 1994. If we assume that the average criminal used their weapons at least two times in 1994, we get a figure of closer to one percent criminals to 99% legal gun owners.
Huh, WHAAAA? After your relentless whining, and against my better judgment, I finally agreed to re-visit the issue with you, yet again. All I asked was for you to provide the post# and text of which argument you claim I didn’t respond to. And now you refuse!!! (What was that somebody said about putting up or shutting up?)
Hmmm…another fabulous logical argument. :rolleyes:
They’re a fun bunch, aren’t they? 
By the way, I was an English major and didn’t take many courses in stats. If I’ve made an error I would appreciate someone clearing up my ignorance. Thank you.
And that assumes that everyone who used a firearm to commit a crime that year had previously owned the firearm legally, as I believe the 44 million figure only includes lawfully held firearms.
Good point.
Apparently, some of you are confusing ignoring with hurling invective at. 
I’m not redefining the terms, I’m refusing to be “labeled” by the arguments and terms of the anti-gun position. Stipulated, it’s not your position, but is it fucking inconceivable that it’s the position of someone else here on the Straight Dope? Someone who’s just lurking and reading? Or that some undecided person is reading this, and might be moved a bit one-way-or-another by he arguments and positions set forth?
And as far as it NOT being your position, you argue it fairly well, even as you seem incapable of grasping the concept of one side of a debate refusing to be defined by the terms of their opponents in the debate.
When the perpetrators of violent crimes get routinely identified as “gun owners” (when in fact most are criminals and illegally possess their firearms), it is incumbent upon the lawfull gun owners to correct the misconception.
For the anti-gunners would love nothing more than to establish a link in the minds of the Undecided of “Gun Owners=Criminals.” Rosie O’Donnell certainly did when she advocated that all gun owners be rounded up and put in prison; no cause, no trial, just round up the gun owners and lock them away.
Or how about when Spike Lee advocated the summary execution of Charlton Heston? His crime? Long-time civil rights activist and President of the NRA.
As far as your comment to enipla, he (or she) can answer for his (or her) self; but I’m refusing to give up my rights as some form of legislative “collateral damage” to theoretically stop some class of person to which I do not belong, and refuse to be categorized with, or even remotely associated with by the specious logic of “[lawful] gun owners have guns; criminals have guns; therefore a link exists between [lawful] gun owners and criminals.”
And catsix was dead on the money; people like Cat (and I) are Sarah Brady’s nightmare; we’re the nails that refused to lay down when hammered by her and her organization’s rhetoric, that refuse to accept the “role” of the villain in their tawdry little passion play.
If someone can give me a reply with no rhetoric or invective, I’d appreciate it.
I’m a 22-year-old female living in Texas with her 23-year-old fiance. In our house we keep one rifle and one pistol (the latter being a collector’s item - a flintlock - rather than what one normally thinks of as a handgun). In his parent’s house, he has several more guns that he has not transported to our place. We use them for sport, as I enjoy practicing marksmanship and he enjoys blowing things up.
What do you think should happen to us and our guns? When, how and why?
I’m ‘pro-gun’ now. But I used to be more moderate. I know you are looking for the ‘anti-gun’ opinion, but I can’t give that. The ‘anti-gun’ folks have changed my mind.
I think that politicians are trying to get the swing votes. And often they do. They are going after the undecided and uneducated (about guns).
The AWB (wasn’t renewed, because it made no sense)
Armor piercing bullets. (pretty much every hunting riffle is ‘armor piercing’)
Teflon coated bullets.
‘Cop Killer’ bullets.
.50 BMG ban.
None of which have anything to do with gun crime. But it sounds pretty good on the 6 O’clock news. And gets votes from those that don’t know much about guns.
Let’s see. Chicago did not make handguns illegal, just made it illegal to have an unregistered handgun. And then did not register handguns. (I think that’s how it went, correct me if I’m wrong). If that’s right, it’s one hell of a sneaky way around peoples rights. If anyone knows more about the gun laws in Chicago, I would like some specifics.
Crafter_Man and racinchikki -
I went off on a tangent there. Sorry.
If I was still moderate, I would be for gun registration, possibly firearms safety classes.
Australia’s crime-rate, with regard to most violent crimes, is not burgeoning, FYI. For example, there has been a decrease in the murder rate (from 59 per 100K of population in 1993 to 42 per 100k in 2002 BY FIREARM) according to these statistics.
I know Australia is a loong way away, but get it correct.
Sarah: double check your stats.
It seems that when it comes to murder, Australians have always preferred “Other Weapons” to Firearms, and that Australia also has a prevalance for killing more people with their bare hands (“no weapon used”) by a comfortable margin of very nearly always 2-to-1, and in 2002, over 3-to-1. 1996 is the only year that shows an inversion in this trend.
Enough so that, over the two periods covered (93-96 & 97-02), Non-Weapon Murders increased 12%+, for a net gain of only 2.63%
But to offset this wonderfull news:[ul]
[li]Attempted Murders Committed with a Firearm have increased 5.2%; [/li]
[li]Assaults with a Firearm have increased 6.68%;[/li]
[li]Sexual Assaults with a Firearm have increased 32.91%;[/li]
[li]Kidnappings/Abductions with a Firearm have increased 92.88%;[/li]
[li]While Robbery with a Firearm has dropped 10.39%, Robberies with “Other Weapons” has risen 106.98%.[/ul][/li]
Whew! Thank Og for your gun control laws; if I lived down under, I’d feel safer already. :rolleyes:
And thanks for throwing up Tim Lambert; he’s always fun to deconstruct. :wally
ExTank, just so we’re all on the same page, cite?
Exactly so… You are right.
But you glossed over the overall crime rate, the aggravated assault, rape, robbery, robbery with a weapon, etc. Burglary, et al… The criminals have nothing to fear from the population anymore…
I do not think that a few lives are worth the increase in all the other stuff. I have a sister who was raped. Making that easier and safer for the criminal does not impress her or me a bit.
If all you want to do is save lives at ANY cost, then I just hope I can out vote you in this country.
I do not feel those are good examples to follow for the people of the US of A.
YMMV
FinnAgain: sorry for the delay.
Click the “these statistics” link in Sarah Woodruff’s post # 394, just above mine.
Addendum: the Violent crime stats provided on Table 1a: Violent Crimes, 1996-2003 in the “FYI” link shows a drop over a few years for key violent crimes, but for the entire period covered, it show an upward trend in all categories except homicide, which shows a 2.6% drop over the period covered. Note that that table is not a Gun Crime table.
This Table from the same report shows the breakdown by weapon types, but not the rate-change over the covered period.
In the Selected Crime Profiles section of the same report there is no breakdown of trends in crime by weapon type over time that I can locate to compare with the numbers Lambert posted on his website.
However, I did locate the Report he’s referring to at the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Anyone who wants to fork up $23 Aussie Bucks can read it to their heart’s content; personally, I’m wondering why Mr. Lambert didn’t put the entire report up there for everyone to see and review, instead of selectively posting the one narrow piece of information he thought would support his position.
Upon further review, that’s not very clear; allow me to clarify
“Enough so that, over the two periods covered (93-96 & 97-02), even as Firearm Murders declined 18.16%, and Other Weapon Murders declined .29%, Non-Weapon Murders increased 12.19%, for an overall drop of only 2.63% in total Murders.”
Thanks, I thought you were talking about another cite, not that our guest didn’t know better than to post a cite with such blatant holes in it. Live and learn.