Date sent: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 19:24:20 -0400 From: Michael S Lorrey <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: GUNS: Fear of Guns Vs. Fear of No Guns To: email@example.com Organization: http://lorrey.com http://artlocate.com Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> "Joe E. Dees" wrote:
> > Date sent: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 16:38:27 -0400
> > From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <email@example.com>
> > > >
> > > > Ho hum, emotional rhetoric, yes, that's really going to convince people. BTW,
> > > > the number of murders and the number of shooting accidents (which often
> > > > include suicides classified as 'accidents' by the cops for various reasons)
> > > > have been going down for years; so why is this 'clearly out of control'?
> > >
> > > yes, the only activities which are at lower risk are civil aviation, getting
> > > struck by lightning, and a few others. The firearns accident rates for children
> > > and overall are less than a tenth of the rates at the turn of the century.
> > >
> > Au contraire; the number of people in the US who died of gunshot-
> > related injuries in 1995 was 32,909. These figures were furnished
> > by James R. Peterson, a progun activist, in the August issue of
> > Playboy Magazine. This is less than the number killed on the
> > highway the same year, but not by a whole lot.
> These are accident rates, not crime rates. Get your facts straight. Accidental gunshot
> related injuries for 1995 for people under 15 or 18 was about 250. Using suicides or
> criminal on criminal gun violence as justification for controlling law abiding usage
> is insane, about as insane as using government perpetrated gun crime in europe to
> justify taking civilian guns away.
The comparison is a less than comprehensive one, true; total auto- related death to intentional gunshot-related death (only part of the total, as you so kindly pointed out). If we were to compare total death to total death, the figures would be even closer. Thanks for reinforcing my point, Mike.
> Mike Lorrey