[WyldOne]

i don't even know if this is possible. but i need some information from completely unbiased (from either side) source(s), someone who has absolutely no stake in reporting/twisting the numbers.

this is what i want to know (if the information even exists anywhere)

how many guns exist in the u.s?
of those...
how many are "in circulation"? (i guess?)
how many are "broken" (i think?) or not working or whatever, and their parts are used to fix other guns? god i hope that made sense.
how many have been used to commit a crime?
how many have been used to stop a criminal?
how many have been used to stop a crime/criminal without firing a single shot?

how many have been involved in accidental shootings? (there ya go sandy ;))
how many have been legally obtained and liscensed, then stolen and used in a crime?

how many just sit in a case (or on a wall....) and just look pretty?

okay i think that's all i wanna know (for now ;)). oh, and could you properly align the moon and stars for me, too? i hope i'm not asking for too much :D

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: WyldOne ]

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: WyldOne ]

[Greg L]

Wasn't there a joke like this about building a bridge to Hawaii over in Make Me Laugh a little while ago? :)

Denise,

I don't think that there is anything like what you are looking for out there, at least not in very accurate figures.

How many guns? Who knows. You would have to add up all that have been manufactured by all companies (even those that are no longer in business) over the last 150 years, figure out some way to count the guys who built blackpowder rifles in their garages, gangsters who built zip guns (but do we count those that blow up on the first shot or does that fall into the "in circulation" catagory :) ), the few rifles made every year at Williamsburg (really) and others. Then you need to figure out how many are still in the country. How many went overseas with our soldiers and got left there, blown to pieces, broken, etc. How many arms were shipped to England in 1940-1 when they were worried about being invaded (there were collections made throughout the US to donate old rifles to send to the British), how many were used in a crime and thrown in a lake, how many were destroyed in house fires, etc. Obviously there can't be an accurate figure of these. That is why you will always hear the total # talked about in round numbers.

For your other questions the same type of reasoning applies. There are no hard and fast answers and in a lot of cases no statistics kept. If your showing a gun stops a mugger from attacking you, no shots fired and no police report made, who is to know?

I think that the most honest researcher out there is John Lott (I can't say unbiased because he now is). He started out looking for answers to similar questions from an anti viewpoint and as he found out the facts changed his mind on guns (kinda like someone else we have gotten to know ;) :p ). He submits his work for peer review and has never been faulted for his methodology (unlike items presented by the anti side which are never submitted for peer review and if anyone does complain about the methodology used they are denounced in personal attacks).

Kids are screaming for lunch. Got to go. Hopefully I'll have some more time later for more.

Greg

[Sleepy]

"how many have been used to stop a criminal?"

Click here (http://www.angelfire.com/il2/imconverted/il2/imconverted/Default.htm) and scroll down a little bit to the gun clock (this is my homepage, excuse the mess haven't fixed it up in awhile) From that link you can (should) be able to see how many crimes were STOPPED by means of a firearm.

Not sure what to tell you on many of those questions, but CDC has some accurate stats on certain things, you might want to check that site out. Good luck :)

[WyldOne]

grr. i was sorta anticipating that. there should be a Gun Census or something, just so i could have my questions answered. :)

i wonder if a census-type thing would even be realistic at all? i cannot be the first person to suggest/request/oh whatever :D this...

[Sleepy]

The gun clock link is not working. Does anyone have the correct URL for the gunclock?

[Sleepy]

"how many have accidently shot someone"

Zero. Guns are inanimate objects :D :p

[WyldOne]

Originally posted by Sandy:
<STRONG>"how many have accidently shot someone"

Zero. Guns are inanimate objects :D :p</STRONG>

geez i knew that. and i fixed it, so there! :p :rolleyes: ;)

[Sleepy]

Sorry I couldn't resist :D

[Greg L]

[kids are fed, just waiting for the next crisis]

there should be a Gun Census or something

:eek: :eek: Don't you remember the uproar a couple of years ago when the govt wanted to know how many bathrooms and toilets you had on their census?

I can just see it now:

{knock knock knock}

"Hello there Mr. Washington DC crack dealer. I know that as a convicted felon who lives in Washington DC you are not allowed to have any type of firearm but I am required by Congress to ask if you have any and what type they are"

Answers (pick one):

a) Snick.... BOOOM

b) "As someone who has spent my life in and out of the justice system I will take the Fifth and not incriminate myself."

c) "Why sure, let's see. I have this pot metal beauty here under my pillow, this nickle plated sissy pistol here in my pants, and a sawed off shotgun under the couch cushion. Although I have come to realize that possessing a shotgun with a barrel under 18" is wrong so I will be turning it into the police in the next few days."

Or:

{ring ring}

Hello there Mr. Average American my name is Perfectly Modulated Anonymous Voice calling from the government to ask you how many guns you own and what type they are. This information is for informational purposes only and will never be used against you nor will you name be put on a list of gun owners."

:eek: "Guns.... guns? Nope, no guns here. We only use that 6' tall 4' wide 1200 pound safe out in the garage for record storage. Wouldn't think of having a gun out here on the farm."

**

England and Australia recently had such a gun census done. The law abiding people responded. A few years later the govt came and rounded up all the guns that were listed. Food for thought.

Greg

[Kalvan]

i wonder if a census-type thing would even be realistic at all?

It's called gun registration. We're opposed to it, and if it was in place you (and the government) would only know how many properly registered guns there are (and where they are), not how many there actually are. Many crimes are not reported. Kleck's and Lott's figures based on surveys are about the best. They are basically anti-gun academics who did research expecting to find one thing but found the opposite and were honest about their results. They are discounted by anti's because their figures directly refute the dogma of the anti's.

[WyldOne]

Originally posted by Greg L:
<STRONG>Don't you remember the uproar a couple of years ago when the govt wanted to know how many bathrooms and toilets you had on their census? </STRONG>

to be honest? no, i don't remember that. i just took my first census last year, and i got the short form.

anyway, i wasn't thinking of a government thing. (i know i should have said that, but why don't you just read my mind? jeeez ;) :p)

couldn't the nra (for *example*) send out a survey to....it's members i guess? and have these members contact any friends of theirs that own guns but aren't members? the survey could ask basically the questions i just did ( ;) :D), or some variation of them...

of course i recognize that there are millions of problems with this idea. to begin with, in all honesty i wouldn't trust (sorry, but i wouldn't) figures that come from the nra any more than i would trust hci's numbers. there's just too much at stake. but if an independent research organization, or a think tank or something, sent out the surveys, it would smell to me as not being *really* independent, and probably to many gun owners as just being a government coverup to get people's guns.

i just want my stinkin' questions answered. it's one of few? only? ways i can think of to give me some real perspective on this. (without doing all that research myself, god forbid...) ;) :p

well, i'm off to see if the cdc can help or not.....

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: WyldOne ]

[Col. Mustard]

The only moderately reliable, or at least commonly cited, numbers I'm familiar with are 240,000,000 guns, owned by 80,000,000 people. From the discussions on this board, it would appear that the members of FFF account for approximately half of each of those numbers. :rolleyes:

Most of the other numbers are bound to be purely speculative. For instance:
how many have been used to stop a crime/criminal without firing a single shot?

Many pro-gun people think this number is as high as 4.5 million. The antis claim it's more like 250,000. (Even this lower number is pretty impressive.) Having added to this particular statistic myself just last week (see my thread, if you haven't, under CQC/LH), I'm going to lean toward the higher end.

[Col. Mustard]

The other problem (outside of getting some actual numbers) is getting general acceptance of the numbers' credibility. John Lott's study was an exhaustive exercise in statistical research; yet because it arrived at a conclusion that is unpopular (more guns, less crime) the media gave undue publicity to assertions of "flawed science" without any basis for the claims. Lott has no ax to grind that I am aware of, and I've seen no evidence of significant procedural flaws in his analysis.

If I could get you to read one chapter of one book, it would be Chapter 1 of More Guns, Less Crime (John Lott, University of Chicago Press); it presents, in a general way, some of the conclusions, limitations, and perspectives from his study. Next time you're at the library...

[Baba Louie]

W.O.,

I noticed you on TFL the other day. Way to go. Spreading your wings and all that. Try this bit of arcane gun facts found on KABA and see if any of the questions you asked can be found in the bibliography or footnotes.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/gunfacts.pdf

Not that they have taken a position on the whole gun issue vs. myths stance here (LOL), but its a place to start researching. DOJ, FBI, CDC and BATF sites are also interesting places to visit to bolster facts, as is the NRA site.

[Added in edit, Robert Teesdale seems to have a good grasp on facts and figures, try contacting him at his site here:
http://www.teesdale.com/

He's also got several links that are interesting unto themselves] edit out

Hope it helps.

Adios Amigos

[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Baba Louie ]

[WyldOne]

scott, i checked out more guns, less crime from the library. just haven't actually sat down to read it yet. :) there was another one that was suggested to me earlier (of course the title slips my mind now), and i looked for that but the library didn't even carry it. hmm.

BL, thanks for the links!! :) i have to wait until i get home though, 'cause i'm not supposed to download non-work-related stuff here (otherwise, just imagine what people would be doing....) :eek: ;)

[Baba Louie]

W.O.,

Also check out this site:
http://www.gunscholar.org/

It seems that a Prof. Randy Barnett of Boston Univ. Law (617) 353-3099 is a local (to you) expert(?) and/or Gun Scholar and if called upon may be able to have a meaningful conversation (don't know how pro or con he is) and direct you to scholastic type data as opposed to anecdotal info.

Let us know what you find out, please?

Adios Amigos

[WyldOne]

Originally posted by Baba Louie:
<STRONG>Let us know what you find out, please?</STRONG>

boy are you gonna be sorry you asked. :D

i emailed that BU guy, but i found a chick from bentley college that sounds even cooler. this is her focus:


Constitutional law, history of the right to keep and bear arms, history of the relationship between firearms and violence.

wow! that's like...exactly what i wanna know. :) so i think i'm gonna call her when i get home and leave a message. i'm still not comfortable enough w/ this whole deal to be overheard at work talking about guns....

anyway. i found this on the fbi website...it's from '97 though, before NICS started (that's what it said). the fbi, i'm presuming, isn't biased in this matter? i seriously don't know, but i realize that i'm falling victim to the "if they're in charge, they must know the answers and not have an agenda" baloney. so now i'm not sure anymore. this is what i've found (so far):

survey recently released by the Police Foundation. Guns in America: Results of a Comprehensive National Survey on Firearms Ownership and Use, by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, provides details on the weapons and the demographics of their owners. Of the 192 million privately owned firearms in the United States, 65 million are handguns, 70 million are rifles, and 49 million are shotguns. Most gun owners in the survey were middle-aged, middle-class whites from rural areas. Forty-six percent of gun owners own them for protection against crime, and on any given day, 3 million adults carry a gun either on their person (1 million) or in their car or truck (2 million). To obtain a copy of the report, contact the Police Foundation at 202-833-1460.

you guys won't like this one:


According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics bulletin, Presale Firearm Checks by Don Manson and Gene Lauver, presale background checks on potential handgun buyers required by the Brady Handgun Violence Act have stymied more than 186,000 illegal over-the-counter gun sales during the first 28 months. Of the 9 million applications to purchase firearms submitted from March 1, 1994, through June 30, 1996, an estimated 186,000 were rejected, an average of 6,600 per month. Over 70 percent of the individuals rejected were convicted or indicted felons.

source (http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/1997/sept297.htm)

what would "other dangerous weapons" be?:


Firearms were used in 25.6 percent of the total murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults collectively during 2000. Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) were involved in 31.5 percent of these crimes, and knives or cutting instruments were employed in another 15.0 percent. Other dangerous weapons were used in 27.9 percent of the offenses. (emphasis added). ban fists! :confused:


Firearms were used in 65.6 percent of the murders in 2000. By firearm type, handguns accounted for 51.7 percent of the murder total; shotguns, 3.6 percent; rifles, 3.1 percent; and other or unknown types of firearms another 7.3 percent.


Firearms were used in 40.9 percent of robberies during 2000. Strong-arm tactics were used in 40.4 percent of robberies, knives or cutting instruments were the weapon used in 8.4 percent of robberies, and other types of weapons were used in 10.3 percent of robberies.


In 2000, 35.9 percent of aggravated assaults were committed with blunt objects or other dangerous weapons. Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) were used in 28.0 percent of the assaults; firearms, in 18.1 percent; and knives or cutting instruments, in 18.0 percent.
source (http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/cius2000.htm)

Regarding NICS (i have no context for this but thought you guys might find it...interesting...):


In the first 41 days of operation into early 1999, a total of 1,030,606 background checks were processed on people seeking to purchase handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Of the checks conducted by the FBI, the Bureau denied 11,584 transfers of firearms under provisions of the Act. Of the 11,584 denials, 1,541 were the subjects of outstanding arrest warrants.

source (http://www.fbi.gov/publications/5-year/1993-98/report7.htm)
(this is pretty OT but i thought i'd share it anyway: Riot Response: An Innovative Approach (http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/1997/jan972.htm) heh.)

okay that's it for now...it's almost time for lunch and i haven't done any work yet! :eek: plus this is getting really long...

BUT i do love technology. check this out, free books online:

Under Fire: The New Consensus On The Second Amendment (http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/bk-ufire.html)

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms: The Common Law Tradition (http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/maltrad.html)

[Col. Mustard]

Of the 9 million applications to purchase firearms submitted from March 1, 1994, through June 30, 1996, an estimated 186,000 were rejected, an average of 6,600 per month. Over 70 percent of the individuals rejected were convicted or indicted felons.

From John Lott's book, Chapter 8: "In 1996 the General Accounting Office reported that initial rejection based on background checks numbered about 60,000, of which over half were for purely technical reasons, mostly paperwork errors that were eventually corrected. A much smaller number of rejections, 3,000 was due to convictions for violent crimes..."

I'm not sure what relationship these sets of numbers have to one another (different time span?), but I'd bet many (over half?) of those 186,000 rejections were paperwork errors....

(edit: Upon reflection, it seems likely that if GAO made that report in 1996, given the typical bureaucratic lag in releasing statistics, it probably only included the early pary of the 1994-1996 interval quoted by WO. Chances are, the pattern of "corrected initial rejections" remained consistent.)

[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Clueless in Charlotte ]

[Greg L]

No links or other proof but I've heard that included in that 186,000 were people who were delayed for one reason or another. I fall into that catagory. For some reason everytime I purchase a firearm (handgun or long gun) I get put on delay. So on average I account for 10 or so of that 186,000 per year.

Also something to look at is just how many of the 186,000 were actually charged with something or arrested. The Brady types love to scream that 186,000 gun sales were stopped (leaving the impression that 186,000 criminals no longer have guns - yeah right) but they never mention that almost nobody is ever prosecuted for this. I think that one year in the mid 90's the total prosecutions for all of these 186,000 eeevil guns being kept off the streets was a grand total of 3. I feel so much better now. If I have time later I'll try to track down the actual stats for this. For now though the boys are trying to dismember each other so I need to go throw them outside. :rolleyes:

Greg

[WyldOne]

man i could spend all day at the fbi site. (those words so rarely come from me...relish this moment :) ;))

so the cdc wasn't very helpful or useful. talk about one-sided....how come? what do they stand to gain/lose in this issue?

anyway get ready. this bites:


In 1994 there were 38,505 firearm-related deaths. These included:
- over 17,800 firearm-related homicides
- over 18,700 firearm-related suicides
- over 1,300 unintentional deaths related to firearms.

okay, that's one part of the issue. now, as to my question about using firearms to prevent homicides (and crimes)? or are those numbers just impossible to figure out? well my question about accidents got answered anyway. and if, according to the fbi, there were 192 million privately owned firearms (though that was in '97 and the cdc statistics are from '94...), and 1300 accidental deaths? then...what's the problem? actually sounds like a pretty good track record to me.


More than 70% of homicides are committed with a firearm

okey doke. now, how many homicides were prevented with a firearm? and why does the cdc not even allude to this aspect whatsoever? Or am i just reading too much into things here.

this one seemed pointless:

Firearm assaults on family members and other intimate acquaintances are 12 times more likely to result in death than are assaults using other weapons.

:confused: why would this number be different for "family members and other intimate acquaintances" than for anyone else? and....is anyone really disputing that guns are really really powerful and could kill people? no....i didn't think so... :confused:


In 1994, 4,211 women over 19 years of age were victims of homicide in the United States. Over half of these women (54%) were killed with a firearm.

um, did men fall off the planet in '94? :confused:


In 1994, firearm injuries were the second leading cause of death for young people, 10 to 24 years of age and the third leading cause of death for persons aged 25 to 34.

i will say that that's pretty alarming. but it just....doesn't seem right for some reason. i can't really pinpoint what is i'm having a problem with though.


People living in households in which guns are kept have a risk of suicide that is 5 times greater than people living in households without guns.

golly, and all this time i thought that people who were depressed were more likely to commit suicide. come to find out, it's people who live in the same house w/ funky metal things that are really at risk for suicide! who'da thunk it? gee i wonder about the correlation :rolleyes:


In 1994, there were 787 unintended firearm deaths among persons aged 10 to 29, accounting for 58% of all unintentional firearm deaths in the nation that year.

proof that, if nothing else, i have at least learned *something*. i'm willing to guess that most (all?) of those 787 deaths were in households where people just bought a gun based on emotion/fear. now, how many people who have grown up in and around guns, and raised their kids in a like fashion, are part of this 787 number? um yeah, i thought so. (maybe this whole thing isn't impossible to learn, afterall ;))

i looked through their references listed at the bottom of the page...and now i gotta wonder how many of those people sit on the board of directors at hci or any similar organizations...
source (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/fafacts.htm)


edited to add extra sources i found on the cdc site:

Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm)

Nonfatal and Fatal Firearm-Related Injuries -- United States, 1993-1997 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4845a1.htm)

Firearm-Related Injury Surveillance, 1998 (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/firerela.htm)

[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: WyldOne ]

[Sleepy]

"
In 1994, 4,211 women over 19 years of age were
victims of homicide in the United States. Over half of
these women (54%) were killed with a firearm."

I would like to know what percentage of those firearms were legal. Remember people get shot everyday and majority of those times, the guns are not legal. Here in Chicago, Cabrini Green has shootings every single day, many by teenagers. Obviously they didn't have a FOID card so they shouldn't be touching it in the first place according to the law, second handguns are ILLEGAL in the city limits. See where I am going with this? ;) Some stats can be decieving because I am sure those 4,211 women were not shot with legal firearms, some perhaps but all, no way. Also consider how many women are in the population, that 4,000 seems like alot but in reality it isn't that much. (Check out how many people died in car crashes the number is significantly higher. I had to throw that in Denise sorry ;) :D )

Sorry the CDC didn't work out for ya W/O. Ask Jeff (if you are still conversing with him) to give you some links. He has alot of them with accurate non-biased stats.

[Kalvan]

so the cdc wasn't very helpful or useful. talk about one-sided....how come? what do they stand to gain/lose in this issue?

Your tax dollars at work. The people in charge of CDC are anti-gun, so they support "research" that validates their position.

but I'd bet many (over half?) of those 186,000 rejections were paperwork errors....

Here they were stopping people for outstanding traffic tickets.

"In 1994, firearm injuries were the second leading cause of death for young people, 10 to 24 years of age and the third leading cause of death for persons aged 25 to 34."

i will say that that's pretty alarming. but it just....doesn't seem right for some reason. i can't really pinpoint what is i'm having a problem with though.

The majority of these are gangbangers at the higher end of the age scale.

golly, and all this time i thought that people who were depressed were more likely to commit suicide. come to find out, it's people who live in the same house w/ funky metal things that are really at risk for suicide! who'da thunk it? gee i wonder about the correlation

You are, of course, correct. People who are suicidal generally just find another means. Japan has almost no guns, and a higher suicide rate than the US.

[WyldOne]

(dang photocopier is just makin it impossible to keep up w/ the important things in life...internet bulletin boards! sheesh the nerve ;))

Originally posted by Sandy:
<STRONG>I would like to know what percentage of those firearms were legal. Remember people get shot everyday and majority of those times, the guns are not legal.</STRONG>

ooooh! good point. :)


<STRONG>Sorry the CDC didn't work out for ya W/O. </STRONG>

no, it was actually a good thing. for me to take something that's supposed to be "unbiased" and just actually sit down and read it, shows me how much i've learned (and of course how much i have to go) and also helps me to see where i got all my ideas from in the first place. :)

Originally posted by Kalvan:
<STRONG>The majority of these are gangbangers at the higher end of the age scale.</STRONG>

so the numbers are right? second and third leading cause of death? something....i dunno, something just doesn't feel right...what about AIDS? car accidents? swimming pools (i never would have thought of that one until i came here)? other homicide/suicide, not firearm related? choking on governmental lies? (<- i'd think that'd be #1 ;))

[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: WyldOne ]

[Greg L]

choking on governmental lies? (<- i'd think that'd be #1

The problem is that you have to recognize it as a lie before you can choke on it. There are too many people out there who will believe anything fed to them.

Trust but verify.

Greg

[Sleepy]

Remember too that many of these "stats" they use the word "children" but are referring up to the age of 24. Alot of it is very misleading. I want to know when they are going to come out with new stats seeing that 94 was seven years ago. Also, always keep in mind the population count, that is what they are going by. SOme of those numbers seem extreme when you aren't putting it against the actual population. Your best bet is to take stats from several places and see who is matching and who isn't. If none of them match, then whose to say who is right :D I have a hard time believing those things, no one can get a claim to an insurance company what would make me belive some little guy is sitting there making check marks every time someone is shot. Did he ask the dead person HOW he was shot? or did he ask the perp if his gun was legal or not? I think not. :evil

[Kalvan]

so the numbers are right? second and third leading cause of death? something....i dunno, something just doesn't feel right...what about AIDS? car accidents? swimming pools (i never would have thought of that one until i came here)? other homicide/suicide, not firearm related?

I don't know how right the numbers are. I do know that gunshot deaths in those age groups are largely criminal on criminal violence. Not very many are 10 years old. The police in Chicago did a study some years ago that showed something like 75% of all victims of gunshot deaths had criminal records. IIRC, death by gunshot is the leading cause of death for black males in a certain age group (18-24 or something like that). I would guess that automobile accidents are No. 1 in both of the age groups you mentioned. It takes quite a while to die from AIDS and I believe the incidence of AIDS is dropping. Ever heard of Hep C? Many more people have Hep C than AIDS, and 75% don't know even know they have it. But it is the leading cause of liver transplants now. A lot of suicides are elderly.

BTW, remember, when you're reading this stuff, that "homicides" includes justifiable killings by police and citizens.

[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Kalvan ]

[WyldOne]

Originally posted by Greg L:
<STRONG>Trust but verify.</STRONG>

awww i prefer "Question Authority". ;) (and i don't think i could trust right now if i wanted to...)

Originally posted by Sandy:
<STRONG>Remember too that many of these "stats" they use the word "children" but are referring up to the age of 24. Alot of it is very misleading. </STRONG>

true...but almost any professionally done information will specify the age range to which they're referring.

as far as old stats...they probably do have more recent ones, but remember this is all *I* have been able to find, and for me to look for this information....well let's face it, i'm pretty ignorant in the area, i don't know what really to look for or where to look or anything, so this is the best i could come up. (plus that pesky boss lady kept givin me more and more work. geez how inconsiderate ;) :rolleyes: )


<STRONG>Also, always keep in mind the population count, that is what they are going by. SOme of those numbers seem extreme when you aren't putting it against the actual population.</STRONG>

i don't think i follow....i haven't found anything that says like, "35% of americans used a gun to commit a crime" (for example). just numbers, like XYZ number of guns were used to commit a crime. or prevent a crime. oh forget it i'm not gonna repeat that list ;) but, that's why i started w/ finding out (or trying to) how many guns exist in the us, compared to how many are "in circulation" or whatever the term would be. like what i found out about accidents, there were 192 million privately owned firearms in '97 according to the fbi, and 1300 accidental deaths in '94 according to the cdc. now, i know there's a 3 year difference but bear with me....obviously the whole "accidental death" thing is way over publicized. that's why i wanted stats from people who (i thought) would have no stake in reporting the numbers, so i could compare them myself. am i making sense? or did i totally miss your point? :)


Originally posted by Kalvan:
<STRONG>BTW, remember, when you're reading this stuff, that "homicides" includes justifiable killings by police and citizens.</STRONG>

see, this is why i like my questions better. :D now i'm all mixed up again....

[Kalvan]

now i'm all mixed up again....

I doubt that. I just wanted to make sure that when you read this stuff that you knew that "homicide" just means the "killing of a human being". Murder is the "unlawful killing of a human being". Some of the things you cited refer to murder, others are homicide. There is a difference.

as far as old stats...they probably do have more recent ones, but remember this is all *I* have been able to find, and for me to look for this information....well let's face it, i'm pretty ignorant in the area, i don't know what really to look for or where to look or anything, so this is the best i could come up.

I think you've done just fine. There's always seems to be a time lag in the stats like that.

[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Kalvan ]

[WyldOne]

whoa....

source (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm)

this is from the US Department of Justice


According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2000, 533,470 victims of serious violent crimes (rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault) stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.

how many total violent crimes were there? and, did the victim face a perpetrator who had a gun, or did the victim use a gun when facing the perpetrator?


Victimizations involving a firearm represented 8% of the 6.3 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault.

The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 15,517 murders in 2000 were committed with firearms.


From 1993 through 1997, less than 1% of serious nonfatal violent victimizations resulted in gunshot wounds.


<STRONG>According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80% </STRONG>

:eek: :eek: :eek:

[WyldOne]

more whoa

:eek:

source (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt)

also from the US Department of Justice:


Self-defense with firearms
*38% of the victims defending themselves with a firearm attacked the offender, and the others threatened the offender with the weapon.

*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.

Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims'injury outcomes.


*In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed or armed with weapons other than firearms. On average between 1987 and 1992, about 35% (or 22,000 per year) of the violent crime victims defending themselves with a firearm faced an offender who also had a firearm. (Because the NCVS collects victimization data on police officers, its estimates of the use of firearms for self-defense are likely to include police use of firearms. Questionnaire revisions introduced in January 1993 will permit separate consideration of police and civilian firearm cases.)


Offenders shot at victims in 17% of handgun crimes, 1987-92

Percent
Shot at victim 16.6%
Hit victim 3.0
Missed victim 13.6
Nongunshot injury 1.6
No physical injury 12.0
Didn't shoot at victim 83.4%
Other attack/attempt 19.9
Verb. threat of attack 15.4
Weapon present 46.8
Other threat .8
Unknown action .5

Average annual number 699,900
Note: Excludes homicides.

[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: WyldOne ]

[MJJH68]

Hmm, I'm surprised nobody seems to have linked you to this one Denise.

USDOJ National Institute of Justice, research in brief: Guns in America: A National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. (http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf)

On a bigger scale, check out the links from here (some good):

Pollack Library Research Guide: Gun Control (http://guides.library.fullerton.edu/GunControl/)

[ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: MJJH68 ]

[WyldOne]

thanks mike :) i could go absolutely nuts in that library!!

the DOJ link is gonna have to wait until i get home though, so i can d/l and print it out from home (and not download a gun thingy at work, yikes ;))