> I just sent out an article quoting numbers of murders by handguns in
> various countries. Just after sending it, I realized that it's
> meaningless, because there can still be plenty of murders without
> handguns. Perhaps the total murder rate, all weapons accounted for,
> is similar in various countries.
>
> Well, after a bit more web surfing, I came upon a chart showing
> murder rate is the US broken down by weapon. The web page is
> http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/Crime_in_Brief/murder.asp and the
> chart shows that between 1971 and 1995, the percentage of murders
> that occur with firearms fluctates between about 80% and 95%. So,
> my argument is complete: the per-capita murder rate in the US is
> between 10 and 50 times higher than in other developed nations, and
> the slack can almost entirely be taken up by firearms.
That's one way of putting it.
Another way of putting it: the US murder rate by KNIFE is higher than
the English murder rate TOTAL.
Eliminating guns is not likely to change this; for that matter, it
strongly indicates that guns are simply the first-choice weapon, not
the only-choice weapon.
And this is known: guns are -- according to the FBI -- the LOGICAL
first choice, the most effective choice, for crime VICTIMS. Gun
defense is more effective than knife defense. More effective than
struggle defense. More effective than run-away defense. More
effective than non-resistance.
So if you promote the elimination of guns, you are trying to defend
criminals from their victims.
US$500 fee for receipt of unsolicited commercial email. USC 47.5.II.227