Re: Firearm life death clock

"AJH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > How does "gun-related deaths" relate to "Firearm homicide" exactly?
>
> I thought we were discussing a "Life/Death" clock. By definition that
should
> report the lives lost to guns versus the lives saved by them, surely.
> Otherwise the argument is moot.

You snipped the part (without notation) which compared "gun-related deaths"
to "Firearm homicide".

> > <snip>
> >
> > > http://members.aol.com/Falconnn/index2.html
> >
> > An amusing little page, but he shot himself in the foot (several times).
> > Taking his last argument at face value still means that firearms save 4
> time
> > as many lives as they cost, kinda defeats his whole argument.
> >
>
> Enlighten me, because I've reread it and I can't see what you see.

Point 1.  Any reader with reasonable comprehension would know he is
comparing accidental death to accidental death.  The comparison *may* be
flawed on other basis but this is not one of them.

Point 2.  The Swiss can own rifles for hunting and the ammo for these does
not have to be accounted for.  Also, if one of them went postal with their
military rifle I doubt that accounting for the ammunition he used would
figure into it.

Point 5.  He acknowledges that firearms are used in self defence 80,000
times a year.  In point 1 he states 20,000 firearms deaths per year.
Therefore simple maths on his figures yields a result of 4:1.
PS. I have no idea if his figures are correct, I'm just using the ones he
provided.

To sum up, for your enlightenment, the author is guilty of the same
distortions that he accuses his opponent of.

And for you to think about:  The Australian and UK experience (and possibly
others) where murders have gone up since more restrictive gun laws, along
with the Swiss experience (and possibly others) serves to show that
environment and sociology may be more pertinent than the availability of
guns.