I am a retired law enforcement officer who just stumbled across your article online. Wow, I have never seen so many statistics that are just plain false! Just for starters, the Dept. of Justice stats say that, on average, there are 10,000 deaths by firearms per year NOT 30,000. You must be talking to the Brady bunch. Three times as many people are killed by drunk drivers as by guns. How about that as a crusade point?
Your 70% by friends and family is equally wrong AND does not address the number who possessed firearms illegally in the first place. It also does not address the fact that "friends" includes criminals and their associates.
I guess you just don't care about the truth.
I faced criminals with guns three times in my career and had two close buddies killed by armed criminals and I can assure you they did not buy their guns legally. I can further assure you that no law would have prevented them from obtaining firearms.
If you are ever in the public forum I offer to debate you on the topic anytime, anywhere. Why do I doubt you'll take me up on that?
I am currently licensed in 31 states to carry concealed - I choose to protect myself from bad guys even though you think no one should be able to do that.
Sincerely,
D.V.
Retired MPDC
Locum Si Tolerare Nequeant Futueantur
Mr. V,
I am sorry about your friends who were killed with guns. I'm sure that their deaths wouldn't be any easier to bear if the guns had been obtained legally.
I'm not sure how discouraging the enactment of gun control laws would've saved their lives. It seems to me that the fewer guns out there, the harder it would be to obtain them illegally as well.
The statistics on my site were the most accurate I could obtain at the time the video was produced in 1987. If the statistics have fallen, I'm sure we're both glad of the fact.
I'm sorry that you feel the need to carry a gun. I don't. But I wouldn't presume to dictate to you how to handle violence (you've obviously encountered a lot more of it than I).
Please extend me the same courtesy and don't presume to tell me how I feel about the truth. I have changed something on my site in the past when someone wrote to me and pointed out an inaccuracy. I researched the facts, found the truth, and changed my site accordingly. If you can tell me what the correct statistic was for 1987, and can supply me with your source, I will investigate the matter and take action if it is warranted. I am all about the truth. Of course, like you, I also have my own opinions which I express -- but I don't ever want to publish lies.
Just out of curiosity: how many thousands of gun deaths, and what percentage of non-criminal friends & family members murdering each other with guns would be acceptable to you?
I don't get the connection between drunk driving fatalities and gun homicides. I know the NRA loves to make that comparison, but I confess it leaves me cold. Cars are not weapons (though they can be used as such). Guns are weapons: that is their purpose. It could be that more people die in the bathtub, but what is the relevance of such facts? Bathtubs and cars serve good and useful purposes: unlike guns, their primary objective is not to kill people.
I have "debated" NRA members in public forums in the past and found it a waste of both my time and theirs. So, I will pass on your offer, thank you.
Sincerely,
--Steve McRoberts
Mr. Roberts:
Thanks for the reply. I always enjoy discussing the issues.
Your premise is that guns are used for nothing but evil. I reject that. Guns save lives as well. Try to tell a woman who has been raped that she is better off not being able to defend herself.
As for statistics. Go to the Department of Justice Crime Stats for 1997. It shows that just under 10,000 people were killed by handguns. Those included people killed by police (by the way, do you advocate police being disarmed?), killed in criminal transactions (between criminals - while committing a crime etc.) as well as accidental shootings. Regarding accidental shootings - they have been decreasing every year for the last 10 years (again according to DOJ stats and the Consumer Safety Product Commission).
I would never tell you or anyone else that you have to carry or even own a firearm. My wife and I choose to own and carry because there are evil people in this world and the right to self defense and life is God given. Here in Virginia we have over 117,000 concealed carry permits issued. In Fairfax County, right outside of Washington, D.C., where I live there are over 10,000 permits alone issued. There has never been a permit holder who has misused a handgun AND the crime stats for Virginia in general and Fairfax County in particular, regarding violent crime (murder, rape, robbery, home invasion) are so much lower then in neighboring D.C. and Montgomery County Maryland as to be laughable. Even the very liberal Washington Post in questioning why there is such a difference in violent crime rates stated that ".......it might be that criminals fear being faced with an armed citizen in Virginia".
Armed citizens have stopped robberies in Virginia, stopped home invasions and on a personal note, I was involved in apprehending a car jacking suspect some years ago in Alexandria along with County Police who were also on the scene.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission lists guns way down the list as causes of death in the home, some where AFTER falls, bathtub slips and baseball bats.
So, in closing, guns were not just made to take lives, they were also designed to save lives. If you believe, as I do, that we are not just put on this earth to fend for ourselves but to look out for others as well then you have to believe that in order to do that you require the tools to accomplish these tasks.
You have the absolute right to disagree with me on any or all of the above. What you don't have the right to do is take away my right to defend myself, my family and others if I choose to do so in a lawful manner.
Dave
Mr. V:
I checked the U.S.. Dept of Justice Crime Statistics (most pertinent page:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/frmdth.htm).
The statistics indicate that I was actually conservative in my estimate.
They only have stats back to 1991 on this page, but elsewhere on the site they state that gun crimes were much higher in the late 80's (my video was taped in 1987, you'll recall, and all my stats relate to that era.)
The stats for 1991 have a total of 38,371 gun deaths. The average for 1991-2001 was 34,040. My site states 30,000 gun deaths for 1981: evidently a conservative estimate. Even if I were to update the site with the latest figures for 1991, rounding to the nearest thousand would still give 30,000.
For suicides, I stated 12,000. The actual stats show 18,526 for 1991, and a 1991-2001 average of 17,828. So, again I was conservative. If I were to update to the 2001 figure, it would increase from 12,000 to 16,869.
In light of this, I'm not going to change the numbers on my site at this time.
I did, however, make a change in wording. As an animal rights advocate I often call killing non-human animals "murder". In the context of gun-control this could be construed as misleading. So I have switched the word "murder" to "death" in the paragraph in question.
The paragraph now reads:
This chart shows a conservative estimate of the death toll from guns in a typical year in the U.S. 176 million animals, including 30,000* humans. That's over 5 gun deaths every second, 24 hours a day -- every day. In the time it takes to watch this program, over 20,000 animals will have been killed by guns, including at least 3 humans.
[*Note: Human gun deaths have decreased slightly since 1987 -- the year these figures were gathered.]
--Steve
Mr. Roberts:
I went to the Justice site you used. It appears you are correct, HOWEVER, break them down - see below:
| 2001 All | Unintentional | Suicide | Homicide | Undetermined |
| 29,573 | 802 | 16,869 | 11,671 | 231 |
You will see that homicide rates are 11,671. I hardly think it fair to say that you should lump suicide, undetermined etc. in your figures. In fact, less than 1/10 of 1% of the legally owned firearms are ever used in a crime. As you stated cars are not made to kill, However, they do a much better job at it than guns. What matter the method? Turning around the argument "if it saves just one life it's worth banning guns" How about "if guns save just one life it's worth having them"? Should hunting knives be registered and licensed because some deranged individual uses one to kill two little girls? Or do we say that guy's nuts or he's just a murderer let's put him away? Why the emotion regarding guns? They are inanimate objects with no will of their own. If you owned a handgun would you kill someone with it if you were angry? I doubt it. There are so many factors that are ignored and replaced with passion that should be kept out of logical discussions.
I respect your views on hunting and killing animals even though I disagree on a number of fronts. I used to hunt when I was much younger. To tell the truth I would probably rather photograph wildlife now than hunt, given the chance. To make that a little clearer - I no longer hunt even though I have the firearms to do so if I wished. I also have the professional camera equipment so I can and do "shoot" animals with film. What I disagree with you on is that you see absolutely (correct me if I'm wrong) no legitimate use for firearms and don't think law abiding citizens should be able to own them except under the most stringent of rules. Yet you don't complain about (at least I haven't heard you do so) the ease with which someone can get a driver's license and propel a 5,000 lb vehicle down the road.
Locum Si Tolerare Nequeant Futueantur
Mr. V.,
You may not think it is fair for me to use the total number of gun deaths, but my web-page clearly states that I am talking about gun DEATHS, not gun homicides. So, I think it's fair, and I think most people would agree.
It was actually much easier for me to get a gun than a driver's license. I don't think it should be that way. To repeat what I've said before: a car has a primary use of transportation: it isn't designed with the purpose in mind of killing people. The purchaser of a car is being trusted with the responsibility of not misusing the car for a purpose other than for what it was intended. We trust that he or she will not use it to mow people down. But this trust has some basis: the person purchasing a car needs to have passed some tests in the responsible use of a car, and needs to have insurance to cover any damage he or she may cause with the car. Without this minimal amount of security we don't allow them to buy the car.
I know that guns are often purchased for protection, but the protection implies the threat of killing someone (even if it's a "bad guy"). The person purchasing a gun is being trusted with making a wise decision as to who the "bad guys" are [it's not, for instance, your spouse whom you surprise in bed with your best friend, or the person who cuts in front of you in line, or the employer who fired you...] But we don't ask the gun purchaser to pass any tests or take out any insurance.
Compared to a gun, a car isn't as easy to use as a weapon. If you catch your spouse in the act of being unfaithful you can't drive your car into the bedroom and run her over (and by the time you walked out to the garage and started the car you probably would've had enough time to cool off a little and start having second thoughts). But if you have a gun in your pocket and fiery rage in your heart, it's just too easy to pull that trigger and deliver what may seem like "instant justice" at the time.
So, if the analogy between cars and guns indicates anything it is that we need stricter controls on guns.
I've always felt that a better analogy than cars is an analogy to the stockpiling of nuclear weapons as a "deterrent". The idea was to "keep the peace" by maintaining the threat of massive death and destruction. But many people feel [myself included] that the existence of such weapons present too great a danger to society to permit countries to own them. What if we get a nut-case in the White House [Oops -- I guess that's already happened!] who is trigger-happy and wants to "teach 'em all a lesson" by launching a few nuclear warheads? Or what if some terrorist group manages to take over a nuclear weapons installation and holds the world hostage? These scenarios are good arguments for global nuclear disarmament, and the analogy to guns in the hands of private citizens I hope is clear. Jealous spouses can act in a moment of blind rage in a way similar to an insane president. Thugs can break into the citizen's home and steal their guns...
Of course, 'if nuclear weapons are outlawed then only outlaws will have nuclear weapons'. But, that is why we outlaw them: so the other nations can take legal sanctions against the outlaws.
I already stated that I felt there were legitimate uses for guns by the military and police.
Yes, you have a right to defend yourself by whatever means necessary. But I agree with other police officers who have stated that introducing a gun into a potentially violent or already violent situation makes matters worse in the majority of cases. Since you are a retired police officer, you have been trained to know when a gun would most likely put an end to a violent situation rather than exacerbate it. I would tend to trust your judgment on that. Still, the prevalence of domestic violence makes me uncomfortable with anyone having a gun in their house. This is where tempers can flare to unreasonable heights, and the presence of a gun makes "solving the problem" too easy in a moment of violent rage.
I agree that everyone has a perfect right to use a gun as a tool for self-defense. But I'm uncomfortable with the idea of people having constant access to a gun the other 99.99% of their lives (when they could be misused, stolen, be found by a child, accidentally discharged, etc...)
It is similar to how I feel very strongly that people don't have a right to kill animals wantonly. Yet I would agree that people have a right to kill animals in self-defense or in the struggle for existence when necessary. So, I don't really believe in "absolutes" on these issues.
Dave, I want to say a big and sincere Bravo! to you for giving up hunting and turning to photography (the heart of the message of
the video we're discussing!)
Also, thanks for reasonably discussing something, which -- as you say -- often descends to emotional attacks from both sides.
--Steve
|
|