From: "J. Neil Schulman" <[j--e--l] at [loop.com]>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Statistics from Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 23:22:04 -0800
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------D4C22C870E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I have had several messages from talk.politics.guns forwarded to me with
comments critical of Interpol statistics I quoted in my book _Stopping
Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns_ (Synapse-Centurion, 1994).
Since this duplicates a similar exchange of correspondence from August,
1994, I'll simply forward that file and leave it at that.
Neil Schulman
--------------D4C22C870E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BRITRBUT.LTS"
INTERNET# Document Id: UX00f.BUX0621451
Item 2342719 94/08/16 16:13
From: [S C C 3] at [DELPHI.COM]@INTERNET# COMM INTERNET GWY
To: SOFTSERV J. Neil Schulman
Sub: Rebuttal of "Stopping Power" s
From [S C C 3] at [delphi.com] Wed Aug 17 00:13:56 1994
Received: from bos1f.delphi.com by relay2.geis.com with ESMTP
(1.37.109.10G/15.6) id AA212222435; Wed, 17 Aug 1994 00:13:56 GMT
Return-Path: <[S C C 3] at [delphi.com]>
Received: from delphi.com by delphi.com (PMDF V4.3-9 #6563)
id <[01 HFZMV 1 O 14 W 8 ZGCBO] at [delphi.com]>; Tue, 16 Aug 1994 20:13:40 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 20:13:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: [S C C 3] at [delphi.com]
Subject: Rebuttal of "Stopping Power" statistical case
To: [s--ts--v] at [genie.geis.com]
Message-Id: <[01 HFZMV 1 OU 2 Q 8 ZGCBO] at [delphi.com]>
X-Vms-To: INTERNET"[s--ts--v] at [genie.geis.com]"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Dear Mr. Schulman,
As a fellow Second Amendment advocate, I am contacting you regarding
your recent book, _Stopping_Power_, which I have purchased and read.
Specifically, I wish to draw your attention towards rebuttals of your
"Overview of the Statistical Case" (pp. 69 - 84) which are being
presented in the very popular Newsgroup 'talk.politics.guns'. It is
my belief that you should be aware of these refutations, in order that
you may (should you so desire) defend your case against them. Should
you desire to so defend your statistical case in the public forum of
talk.politics.guns (or to authorize the quotation of your defense within
that forum), I will provide any assistance possible. If you desire to
make no such defense, you need only decline to reply to this message
and the matter is done -- I will not trouble you again.
With this in mind, I will proceed to quote from the most complete
rebuttal I have yet observed. The compiler and major contributor to
this rebuttal is one Pim van Meurs, who has graciously given me his
blessing to quote it to you. He is a scholar unbiased toward you
personally, and like myself he wishes only that you may have the
opportunity to defend your case. Here are the relevent portions of his
rebuttal (which includes your own quoted material for reference):
[....] indicates material deleted (by myself) in the interest of
brevity.
-------------------------Begin Quote----------------------------------
Pim van Meurs: Neil Schulman 15 Aug 1994 10:22
Let me quote you from a posting found on the cerebus ftp site:
[....]
An answer by J. Neil Schulman to the statement, "The availability of guns
increases the crime rate".
[....]
No, I do not admit that guns increase the crime rate. Your opinion is
not in accordance with known facts.
Switzerland and Israel have two of the most heavily armed civilian
populations on Earth. Both have an extremely low rate of violent crime
and homicide -- some of the lowest anywhere.
According to \The Jewish Week\ for Dec. 11-17, 1992, the Israeli
homicide rate for 1992 was 1.96 per 100,000 persons. One in ten Israeli
civilians is armed.
In Switzerland, every male between 20 and 50 is required to keep
a fully-automatic assault rifle in his home, and the Swiss regularly
carry these full-auto rifles to ranges on public transportation and on
bicycles for practice. There are 4 million weapons in private hands
including 220,000 pistols which gives Switzerland about 3,400 pistols/
100,000 Swiss citizens, which works out to about 220,000 pistols in a
nation of 6.5 million people; and there are 4 million weapons in private
hands, for a ratio slightly less than the ratio in the United States
(61,500/100,000 in Switzerland compared to 83,300/100,000 in the US).
I don't have the overall Swiss homicide rate handy, but they had 91
handgun murders in 1990 -- for a population of 6.8 million, this works
out to a Swiss handgun-related homicide rate of .00014%.
Pim responds===========================
More appropiately is to express this rate per 100,000.
This would be 0.14/100,000, the number for 1983-1986 is 0.46/100,000.
Tim Lambert:
No, Schulman made another error. The percentage is .0014%, the rate
is 1.4/100,000. This number is almost certainly incorrect - the total
homicide rate for the year before was 1.4, and the with gun rate is
unlikely to have tripled.
End response===========================
Let's look at the British now. Great Britain has had almost a complete gun
ban in effect for most of this century. This is reflected in their extremely
low gun homicide rate: Great Britain had 22 handgun homicides in 1990. But
that figure tells only part of the story. Here are the British overall
homicide rates:
homicide rates:
HOMICIDES IN GREAT BRITAIN, 1987-1988
(Source: Interpol)
1987 1988
England & Wales:
Population: 49,923,500 50,424,900
Homicides: 981 992
Homicide Rate: 2 per 100K 1.97 per 100K
Scotland
Population: 5,112,129 5,094,001
Homicides: 508 510*
Homicide Rate: 9.9 per 100K 10.0 per 100K
*excludes Pan Am 103 bombing
Northern Ireland
Population: 1,500,000 1,575,200
Homicides: 401 563
Homicide Rate: 26.7 per 100K 35.7 per 100K
Evidently, British gun control doesn't seem to work at keeping down
the overall homicide rate either in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
Pim reponds==============================================
Note that the source for these statistics is INTERPOL. INTERPOL includes
attempted and completed homicides in their estimate of homicides.
Not very polite to compare homicides in the US with attempted and completed
homicides in the UK.
End response==============================================
COMPARING BRITISH AND AMERICAN HOMICIDE RATES
(Source: FBI Unified Crime Reports)
For comparison, the United States Homicide Rate in
1987: 8.3 per 100K (compare to 9.9 for Scotland, 26.7 for
Northern Ireland); and in 1988: 8.4 per 100K (compare to
10.0 per 100K in Scotland and 35.7 per 100K in Northern
Ireland).
Pim responds===============================================
Indeed the UCR does not include attempted homicides which would explain why
the USA numbers compare so favourably with the UK numbers.
What are the UK numbers ? Let's for an interesting comparisson look at 14
countries including the USA. Note that the rates are per *million* not per
100,000.
Rates of homicide, suicide and household gun ownership in 14 countries.
=========================================================================
Rate per Million
_______________________________________
Homicide Suicide
with a with a % of households
Country Overall Gun Overall Gun with guns
_______________________________________________________________________
Australia 19.5 6.6 115.8 34.2 19.6
Belgium 18.5 8.7 231.5 24.5 16.6
Canada 26.0 8.4 139.4 44.4 29.1
England/
Wales 6.7 0.8 86.1 3.8 4.7
Finland 29.6 7.4 253.5 54.3 23.2
France 12.5 5.5 223.0 49.3 22.6
Holland 11.8 2.7 117.2 2.8 1.9
N. Ireland 46.6 35.5 82.7 11.8 8.4
Norway 12.1 3.6 142.7 38.7 32.0
Scotland 16.3 1.1 105.1 6.9 4.7
Spain 13.7 3.8 64.5 4.5 13.1
Switzerland 11.7 4.6 244.5 57.4 27.2
USA 75.9 44.6 124.0 72.8 48.0
West Germany 12.1 2.0 203.7 13.8 8.9
________________________________________________________________________
The homicide rates are obtained from the 1983-1986 World Health Organization.
End response=====================================
Which refutes the claim that British-style gun control
produces a national homicide rate which is lower than
the United States.
Pim responds=====================================
Not really as we have seen above 7.59/100,000 for USA, 1.63/100,000 for
Scotland and 0.67/100,000 for England and Wales and 4.66/100,000 for Northern
Ireland.
End response=====================================
Now, let's compare these homicide rates with the U.S., by
city (1990):
Washington D.C.: 78 per 100K
Miami: 39 per 100K
Houston: 35 per 100K
New York City: 31 per 100K
Los Angeles: 28 per 100K
Denver: 14 per 100K
Phoenix: 13 per 100K
Seattle: 10 per 100K
El Paso: 7 per 100K
Colorado Springs: 3 per 100K
Pim responds======================================
Only Colorado Springs looks more favorable when compared to Northern Ireland.
Of course, Northern Ireland is in a state of civil unrest. Still the homicide
rates for Colorado Springs homicide rate is still higher than for England
and Wales and Scotland.
End response======================================
And, U.S. by state (1990):
New York: 14.5 per 100K
Pennsylvania: 6.7 per 100K
Montana: 4.9 per 100K
Minnesota: 2.7 per 100K
South Dakota: 2.0 per 100K
New Hampshire: 1.9 per 100K
Iowa: 1.7 per 100K
North Dakota: .08 per 100K
Pim responds======================================
Iowa gets close to Scotland's numbers and North Dakota seems to be the only
one which manages to get below the rates in Northern Ireland, Scotland,
England and Wales.
Tim Lambert:
Except that the rate for ND is obviously incorrect. The population of
ND is about half a million, so a rate of 0.08 is half a homicide in 1990.
End response======================================
Second, there are areas of the United States with a lower
homicide rate than England's, and these areas have little
or no gun control.
Pim responds=======================================
Exactly one such are, North Dakota.
End response=======================================
Third, Colorado Springs, Colorado, with one of the lowest
homicide rates of any major U.S. city has virtually no
gun control laws; yet its homicide rate is only slightly
higher than England's, which has a virtual gun ban.
Pim responds=======================================
Slightly higher means almost 5 times higher.
End response=======================================
----------------------------END QUOTE-------------------------------
I await any reply you may wish to make, and any instructions regarding
your desired distribution thereof. I would only relay to you beforehand
that I have promised to share any reply you would make with Mr. van Meurs.
Further distribution is, of course, at your discretion. Thank you for
your kind attention.
Steve C. Clark
[S C C 3] at [delphi.com]
=END=
Command?
Item 0949996 94/08/16 23:20
From: SOFTSERV J. Neil Schulman
To: [S C C 3] at [DELPHI.COM]@INTERNET# COMM INTERNET GWY
cc: SOFTSERV J. Neil Schulman
Sub: Rebuttal of "Stopping Power" s
Reply: Item #2342719 from INTERNET# on 94/08/16 at 21:41
Dear Mr. Clark:
Thanks for forwarding the "rebuttal." Since it's questioning
source material, I need to go back and check sources. That may
take a little time.
One thing that sticks out in the "rebuttal" material is the stat
that only 27.2% of Swiss households keep guns. I know this figure
is far too low, which makes me instantly suspicious about the
accuracy of the rest of the quoted stats.
I am pretty sure that the Interpol figures I quoted are correct, but
I will double check. I think I filtered out the attempted homicide
figures before I used them.
But let's assume, for a moment, that the international figures are
correct. That still leaves us with Southern States with high gun
saturation and high crime rates, Western States with high gun saturation
and much lower crime rates, cities with gun bans and high crime rates
and cities with easy availability of guns and low crime rates.
The simple fact is that crime and violence in this country is
much more linked to the availability of African Americans than the
availability of guns. After the Civil War, Southern States passed
the first gun control laws in this country to require licensing of
firearms, so that they could be kept out of the hands of recently
freed slaves.
I am not willing to return to a two-tiered system of rights in this
country in order to "solve" the crime problem.
My solution is uniquely American: all decent and responsible people
should be armed so that when indecent people attempt violence, they
will be stopped quickly. If they are, coincidentally, stopped
permanently while attempting their crimes, then the taxpayers won't
have to feed them, which doesn't bother me a bit.
I had a chapter in STOPPING POWER in which I proved, with statistics,
that murder should be legalized since two-thirds of murder victims
have a criminal record, therefore murder is eliminating twice as
many criminals as non-criminals.
The primary case for guns is the moral case, not the statistical
case. So even if Europeans are less inclined to murder one another
than Americans are, they are also more inclined to suffer tyrants
without protest.
J. Neil Schulman
Reply to:
J. Neil Schulman
Mail: P.O. Box 94, Long Beach, CA 90801-0094
Voice Mail: (on AT&T) 0-700-22-JNEIL (1-800-CALL-ATT to access AT&T)
Fax: (310) 839-7653
JNS BBS: 1-310-839-7653,,,,25
Internet: [s--ts--v] at [genie.geis.com]
"Mr. Schulman's book is the most cogent explanation of the
gun issue I have yet read. He presents the assault on the Second
Amendment in frighteningly clear terms. Even the extremists who
would ban firearms will learn from his lucid prose."
--CHARLTON HESTON
STOPPING POWER: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns
by J. Neil Schulman
Foreword by Criminologist and Civil-Rights
Lawyer Don B. Kates, Jr.
Published by Synapse--CenturioN
Price: $22.95 USA / $29.95 Canada
ISBN: 1-882639-03-0
Hardcover, 288 pages
PLEASE encourage all gun rights activists to ask the manager or
assistant manager of their local chain bookstore -- B. Dalton,
Waldenbooks, Barnes & Noble, Bookstar, Crown, etc. -- about when
they are getting in STOPPING POWER. This will be an enormous
help in getting the chains to order the book.
"To deter crime, place a gun nut behind the dead bolt." -- JNS
=END=
Command?
Item 9046070 94/08/16 23:41
From: SOFTSERV J. Neil Schulman
To: [T--I] at [CRL.COM]@INET# Internet Gateway
R.LOWE1 Rick J. Lowe
D.ABHUGH1 Dafydd Ab hugh
cc: SOFTSERV J. Neil Schulman
Sub: Homicide stats
I just received the following via Internet Mail and replied,
but my reply does not answer the statistical challenge raised.
Pete, do you or Don Kates know whether the Interpol figures I
used are skewed as claimed?
Rick, do you know?
Messages follow:
INTERNET# Document Id: UX00f.BUX0621451
Item 2342719 94/08/16 16:13
From: SCC
Item 8957073 94/08/17 03:35
From: R.LOWE1 Rick J. Lowe
To: SOFTSERV J. Neil Schulman
Sub: Homicide stats
Reply: Item #9046070 from SOFTSERV
Neil; a few fast comments:
Re numbers of firearms in the hands of Swiss citizens: there may be
more firearms per capita in the US, but in terms of availability (ie
at least one firearm in the home), the Swiss have much higher rates
of availability than the U.S. Americans simply tend to own numerous
firearms and this pushes the per capita rate up. In fact, it is
often surmised that firearm availability is higher in Canada than in
the US - a similar situation.
> Indeed the UCR does not include attempted homicides which would
> explain why the USA numbers compare so favourably with the UK...
You should note that the UCR's often include homicides which are not
murder - homicide simply means "death caused by another human". I
don't have any reference material here, but you should check this
out. The "fudge factor" built into interpol exists in the UCR's as
well (but in a different fashion), to the best of my memory.
> Let's for an interesting comparisson look at 14 countries...
First, I can tell you that Canada's murder rate is much higher than
2.6/100,000. Second, I can tell you that a hell of a lot more than
27% of Swiss homes contain firearms. Ditto for Norway. Finally, the
WHO is a pretty questionable source of statistics.
It is important to understand that it is rare indeed to be able to
"prove" anything with statistics. Statistics are pointers which show
us trends; the more studies which are in accordance, the bigger the
sample, etc the more persuasive they are. But no study or statistic
standing by itself proves anything one way or another.
> Only Colorado Springs looks more favorable when compared to
> Northern Ireland.
This is a cross cultural comparison. Such comparisons are dangerous
no matter what your position, because it is almost impossible to
eliminate all possible confounding factors. But if you ARE going to
do that, the logical comparison is country to country ie Switzerland
to Scotland, England, Ireland, etc, not city to country.
Your better off staying out of the cross cultural stuff, no matter
what you're arguing. It is very difficult to make a valid
comparison. You're much better off comparing states and states,
cities and cities, etc. Even then, you have to deal with the reality
that social factors are going to differ, and they have a significant
impact.
If someone else brings up cross cultural comparisons, I would tend to
point out the problems with validity. If they must have them, then
of course I would point to Switzerland, Israel, etc. But they really
aren't too valid. The US is a unique social mixture; where else are
you going to find a country that compares to it in social issues such
as the homeless, ghettos, the drug problem, the operation of the
justice system, etc. These all have a significant influence on crime
that cannot be ignored. This is why the Seattle-Vancouver study to
"prove" handgun accessability has a causal relationship with murder
was invalid. Despite the fact they are both port cities on the
Pacific only a couple of hundred miles apart, when you look at their
demographics they are vastly different.
=END=
Command?
Item 4546497 94/08/17 13:51
From: SOFTSERV J. Neil Schulman
To: [S C C 3] at [DELPHI.COM]@INTERNET# COMM INTERNET GWY
cc: SOFTSERV J. Neil Schulman
R.LOWE1 Rick J. Lowe
D.ABHUGH1 Dafydd Ab hugh
[T--I] at [CRL.COM]@INET# Internet Gateway
Sub: Rebuttal of "Stopping Power" s
Reply: Item #2342719 from INTERNET# on 94/08/16 at 21:41
Dear Mr. Clark:
Following up on my Internet message to you yesterday, in response
to your message:
Today I telephoned the British Information Services in New York,
which faxed me 19 pages of statistics, from three different
reference works, regarding crime in the United Kingdom, including
Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, figures corresponding
to American homicide rates were only available for England and
Wales; listings for Scotland and Northern Ireland either did not
separate out homicides from "serious assaults," or only listed
persons "proceeded against" -- that is, booked or indicted; I'm
not sure which -- for homicide, which fails to tell us how
many homicide victims, or un-prosecuted and unsolved homicides,
there were; nor would this tell us about homicides from non-assault
causes such as arson, poisoning, bombings, etc. I have faxed the
Scottish Office Information Directorate for Scottish figures,
if available, but have not yet located a corresponding phone
number for Northern Ireland to inquire; when I do I will fax them
also.
The England/Wales homicide statistics I received today come in
about halfway between the INTERPOL figures I used in STOPPING
POWER, and the World Health Organization (WHO) figures quoted by
Mr. van Meurs. WHO gave the England/Wales homicide rate from
1983-1986 as 6.7/million or --comparing apples to apples --
.67/100,000.
This doesn't even come close to the England/Wales homicide rates
for 1987-1988 I just received:
HOMICIDES IN GREAT BRITAIN, 1987-1988
(Source: Criminal Statistics, England & Wales, 1992,
published by the Home Office):
1987 1988
England & Wales:
Population: 49,923,500 50,424,900
Homicides: 686 645
Homicide Rate: 1.37 per 100K 1.27 per 100K
In other words, the British Home Office homicide statistics for
England and Wales are twice as high as the WHO figures quoted
by Mr. van Meurs.
And, as you'll recall, these are the INTERPOL figures I used:
1987 1988
Homicides: 981 992
Homicide Rate: 2 per 100K 1.97 per 100K
Which, admittedly, comes in higher than the Home Office figures,
but with less of an overestimate than WHO's underestimate.
In looking back at the original comments from Mr. van Meurs and
Mr. Lambert, I note that in one instance Mr. Lambert is commenting
that my quotation for Swiss homicide rates is too high. This would
reinforce, rather than undercut, the thesis that my statistical
case is attempting to support, which is that wide availability of
firearms in Switzerland does not act as a factor to drive up its
homicide rate.
To quote an independent source (and, admittedly, not a primary
one), "International Crime Rates" for 1988 published by the U.S.
Bureau of Justice Statistics gives the Swiss homicide rate as
1.1/100,000 -- lower than England/Wales.
I forwarded your message and my reply to several people. The first
response I got was from a Canadian criminologist, Rick Lowe. Here
is his response:
Item 8957073 94/08/17 03:35
From: R.LOWE1 Rick J. Lowe
To: SOFTSERV J. Neil Schulman
Sub: Homicide stats
Reply: Item #9046070 from SOFTSERV
Neil; a few fast comments:
Re numbers of firearms in the hands of Swiss citizens: there may be
more firearms per capita in the US, but in terms of availability (ie
at least one firearm in the home), the Swiss have much higher rates
of availability than the U.S. Americans simply tend to own numerous
firearms and this pushes the per capita rate up. In fact, it is
often surmised that firearm availability is higher in Canada than in
the US - a similar situation.
> Indeed the UCR does not include attempted homicides which would
> explain why the USA numbers compare so favourably with the UK...
You should note that the UCR's often include homicides which are not
murder - homicide simply means "death caused by another human". I
don't have any reference material here, but you should check this
out. The "fudge factor" built into interpol exists in the UCR's as
well (but in a different fashion), to the best of my memory.
> Let's for an interesting comparisson look at 14 countries...
First, I can tell you that Canada's murder rate is much higher than
2.6/100,000. Second, I can tell you that a hell of a lot more than
27% of Swiss homes contain firearms. Ditto for Norway. Finally, the
WHO is a pretty questionable source of statistics.
It is important to understand that it is rare indeed to be able to
"prove" anything with statistics. Statistics are pointers which show
us trends; the more studies which are in accordance, the bigger the
sample, etc the more persuasive they are. But no study or statistic
standing by itself proves anything one way or another.
> Only Colorado Springs looks more favorable when compared to
> Northern Ireland.
This is a cross cultural comparison. Such comparisons are dangerous
no matter what your position, because it is almost impossible to
eliminate all possible confounding factors. But if you ARE going to
do that, the logical comparison is country to country ie Switzerland
to Scotland, England, Ireland, etc, not city to country.
Your better off staying out of the cross cultural stuff, no matter
what you're arguing. It is very difficult to make a valid
comparison. You're much better off comparing states and states,
cities and cities, etc. Even then, you have to deal with the reality
that social factors are going to differ, and they have a significant
impact.
If someone else brings up cross cultural comparisons, I would tend to
point out the problems with validity. If they must have them, then
of course I would point to Switzerland, Israel, etc. But they really
aren't too valid. The US is a unique social mixture; where else are
you going to find a country that compares to it in social issues such
as the homeless, ghettos, the drug problem, the operation of the
justice system, etc. These all have a significant influence on crime
that cannot be ignored. This is why the Seattle-Vancouver study to
"prove" handgun accessability has a causal relationship with murder
was invalid. Despite the fact they are both port cities on the
Pacific only a couple of hundred miles apart, when you look at their
demographics they are vastly different.
=END=
Since Mr. Lowe's experience in these matters far exceeds my own,
I am happy to accept his cautions as my own.
The Demographic Yearbook published by the United Nations
(of which WHO is a sub-organization), giving homicide stats for
1990, rates Columbia the highest murder and non-negligent homicide
rate with 49/100,000. El Salvador comes in at 40/100,000 and
Mexico with 20/100,000. Note that Columbia has a drug war that
exceeds even the homicide rates caused by urban drug gang wars in
the United States. Also note that Mexico has gun control as strict
or stricter than England. Those who would comment that El Salvador
shouldn't be counted because of its civil war, or that Northern
Ireland shouldn't be considered because of the long-lasting feud
between Protestants and Catholics, need to explain to me why Los
Angeles shouldn't also be excluded from these homicide comparisons
because of the homicides caused by competing drug gangs, interracial
feuds, and social disruption such as resulted in 1992's riots.
While I am suspicious of the WHO figures on gun availability
around the world because of its gross underestimate of gun
availability in Switzerland, I note that WHO's figures shows
France with a homicide rate 16% as high as the U.S. rate but
with a "Percentage of Households with Guns" only about half as
high as the United States. If availability of guns were a
significant factor, then France's homicide rate should be
250 percent higher than it is. Likewise, Canada which WHO
shows having a homicide rate 34 percent as high as the United
States (which Canadian criminologist Rock Lowe tells us is
an underestimate) has a "Percentage of Households with Guns"
of about half that of the U.S. If fewer available guns mean
fewer homicides, than Canadians are working overtime to make
up for that handicap.
As I said in my previous message (which you are, by the way,
authorized to post on POLITICS.TALK.GUNS along with this message),
the primary case for gun availability is moral rather than
statistical.
Even if it could be demonstrated to me that the higher
availability of guns in the United States contributed to
our higher homicide rate, I would argue that the solution is a
better armed and trained public to fight against our obviously
more violent and well-armed criminal class. I do not believe
there is any rational moral or political case to be made for
making innocent people less able to defend themselves from
criminals -- ESPECIALLY if our criminals make us the victims of
violent crimes more often than do criminals in Europe where
guns are less available.
Sincerely,
J. Neil Schulman
Reply to:
J. Neil Schulman
Mail: P.O. Box 94, Long Beach, CA 90801-0094
Voice Mail: (on AT&T) 0-700-22-JNEIL (1-800-CALL-ATT to access AT&T)
Fax: (310) 839-7653
JNS BBS: 1-310-839-7653,,,,25
Internet: [s--ts--v] at [genie.geis.com]
"Mr. Schulman's book is the most cogent explanation of the
gun issue I have yet read. He presents the assault on the Second
Amendment in frighteningly clear terms. Even the extremists who
would ban firearms will learn from his lucid prose."
--CHARLTON HESTON
STOPPING POWER: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns
by J. Neil Schulman
Foreword by Criminologist and Civil-Rights
Lawyer Don B. Kates, Jr.
Published by Synapse--CenturioN
Price: $22.95 USA / $29.95 Canada
ISBN: 1-882639-03-0
Hardcover, 288 pages
PLEASE encourage all gun rights activists to ask the manager or
assistant manager of their local chain bookstore -- B. Dalton,
Waldenbooks, Barnes & Noble, Bookstar, Crown, etc. -- about when
they are getting in STOPPING POWER. This will be an enormous
help in getting the chains to order the book.
"To deter crime, place a gun nut behind the dead bolt." -- JNS
=END=
Command?
Item 2332765 94/08/17 14:18
From: SOFTSERV J. Neil Schulman
To: [S C C 3] at [DELPHI.COM]@INTERNET# COMM INTERNET GWY
cc: SOFTSERV J. Neil Schulman
R.LOWE1 Rick J. Lowe
D.ABHUGH1 Dafydd Ab hugh
[T--I] at [CRL.COM]@INET# Internet Gateway
Sub: Rebuttal of "Stopping Power" s
Reply: Item #2342719 from INTERNET# on 94/08/16 at 21:41
NOTE: The following is a retransmission, after correction of
Item 4546497. I think I cancelled that message before it was
transmitted to the Internet Gateway, but if you received it,
please ignore it and use this one instead -- JNS.
Dear Mr. Clark:
Following up on my Internet message to you yesterday, in response
to your message:
Today I telephoned the British Information Services in New York,
which faxed me 19 pages of statistics, from three different
reference works, regarding crime in the United Kingdom, including
Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, figures corresponding
to American homicide rates were only available for England and
Wales; listings for Scotland and Northern Ireland either did not
separate out homicides from "serious assaults," or only listed
persons "proceeded against" -- that is, booked or indicted; I'm
not sure which -- for homicide, which fails to tell us how
many homicide victims, or un-prosecuted and unsolved homicides,
there were; nor would this tell us about homicides from non-assault
causes such as arson, poisoning, bombings, etc. I have faxed the
Scottish Office Information Directorate for Scottish figures,
if available, but have not yet located a corresponding phone
number for Northern Ireland to inquire; when I do I will fax them
also.
The England/Wales homicide statistics I received today come in
about halfway between the INTERPOL figures I used in STOPPING
POWER, and the World Health Organization (WHO) figures quoted by
Mr. van Meurs. WHO gave the England/Wales homicide rate from
1983-1986 as 6.7/million or --comparing apples to apples --
.67/100,000.
This doesn't even come close to the England/Wales homicide rates
for 1987-1988 I just received:
HOMICIDES IN GREAT BRITAIN, 1987-1988
(Source: Criminal Statistics, England & Wales, 1992,
published by the Home Office):
1987 1988
England & Wales:
Population: 49,923,500 50,424,900
Homicides: 686 645
Homicide Rate: 1.37 per 100K 1.27 per 100K
In other words, the British Home Office homicide statistics for
England and Wales are twice as high as the WHO figures quoted
by Mr. van Meurs.
And, as you'll recall, these are the INTERPOL figures I used:
1987 1988
Homicides: 981 992
Homicide Rate: 2 per 100K 1.97 per 100K
Which, admittedly, comes in higher than the Home Office figures,
but with less of an overestimate than WHO's underestimate.
In looking back at the original comments from Mr. van Meurs and
Mr. Lambert, I note that in one instance Mr. Lambert is commenting
that my quotation for Swiss homicide rates is too high. This would
reinforce, rather than undercut, the thesis that my statistical
case is attempting to support, which is that wide availability of
firearms in Switzerland does not act as a factor to drive up its
homicide rate.
To quote an independent source (and, admittedly, not a primary
one), "International Crime Rates" for 1988 published by the U.S.
Bureau of Justice Statistics gives the Swiss homicide rate as
1.1/100,000 -- lower than England/Wales.
I forwarded your message and my reply to several people. The first
response I got was from a Canadian criminologist, Rick Lowe. Here
is his response:
Item 8957073 94/08/17 03:35
From: R.LOWE1 Rick J. Lowe
To: SOFTSERV J. Neil Schulman
Sub: Homicide stats
Reply: Item #9046070 from SOFTSERV
Neil; a few fast comments:
Re numbers of firearms in the hands of Swiss citizens: there may be
more firearms per capita in the US, but in terms of availability (ie
at least one firearm in the home), the Swiss have much higher rates
of availability than the U.S. Americans simply tend to own numerous
firearms and this pushes the per capita rate up. In fact, it is
often surmised that firearm availability is higher in Canada than in
the US - a similar situation.
> Indeed the UCR does not include attempted homicides which would
> explain why the USA numbers compare so favourably with the UK...
You should note that the UCR's often include homicides which are not
murder - homicide simply means "death caused by another human". I
don't have any reference material here, but you should check this
out. The "fudge factor" built into interpol exists in the UCR's as
well (but in a different fashion), to the best of my memory.
> Let's for an interesting comparisson look at 14 countries...
First, I can tell you that Canada's murder rate is much higher than
2.6/100,000. Second, I can tell you that a hell of a lot more than
27% of Swiss homes contain firearms. Ditto for Norway. Finally, the
WHO is a pretty questionable source of statistics.
It is important to understand that it is rare indeed to be able to
"prove" anything with statistics. Statistics are pointers which show
us trends; the more studies which are in accordance, the bigger the
sample, etc the more persuasive they are. But no study or statistic
standing by itself proves anything one way or another.
> Only Colorado Springs looks more favorable when compared to
> Northern Ireland.
This is a cross cultural comparison. Such comparisons are dangerous
no matter what your position, because it is almost impossible to
eliminate all possible confounding factors. But if you ARE going to
do that, the logical comparison is country to country ie Switzerland
to Scotland, England, Ireland, etc, not city to country.
You're better off staying out of the cross cultural stuff, no matter
what you're arguing. It is very difficult to make a valid
comparison. You're much better off comparing states and states,
cities and cities, etc. Even then, you have to deal with the reality
that social factors are going to differ, and they have a significant
impact.
If someone else brings up cross cultural comparisons, I would tend to
point out the problems with validity. If they must have them, then
of course I would point to Switzerland, Israel, etc. But they really
aren't too valid. The US is a unique social mixture; where else are
you going to find a country that compares to it in social issues such
as the homeless, ghettos, the drug problem, the operation of the
justice system, etc. These all have a significant influence on crime
that cannot be ignored. This is why the Seattle-Vancouver study to
"prove" handgun accessability has a causal relationship with murder
was invalid. Despite the fact they are both port cities on the
Pacific only a couple of hundred miles apart, when you look at their
demographics they are vastly different.
=END=
Since Mr. Lowe's experience in these matters far exceeds my own,
I am happy to accept his cautions as my own.
The Demographic Yearbook published by the United Nations
(of which WHO is a sub-organization), giving homicide stats for
1990, rates Columbia the highest murder and non-negligent homicide
rate with 49/100,000. El Salvador comes in at 40/100,000 and
Mexico with 20/100,000. Note that Columbia has a drug war that
exceeds even the homicide rates caused by urban drug gang wars in
the United States. Also note that Mexico has gun control as strict
or stricter than England. Those who would comment that El Salvador
shouldn't be counted because of its civil war, or that Northern
Ireland shouldn't be considered because of the long-lasting feud
between Protestants and Catholics, need to explain to me why Los
Angeles shouldn't also be excluded from these homicide comparisons
because of the homicides caused by competing drug gangs, interracial
feuds, and social disruption such as resulted in 1992's riots.
While I am suspicious of the WHO figures on gun availability
around the world because of its gross underestimate of gun
availability in Switzerland, I note that WHO's figures shows
France with a homicide rate 16% as high as the U.S. rate but
with a "Percentage of Households with Guns" only about half as
high as the United States. If availability of guns were a
significant factor, then France's homicide rate should be
250 percent higher than it is. Likewise, Canada which WHO
shows having a homicide rate 34 percent as high as the United
States (which Canadian criminologist Rick Lowe tells us is
an underestimate) has a "Percentage of Households with Guns"
of about half that of the U.S. If more available guns mean
more homicides, then Canadians are underachievers in the
homicide department.
As I said in my previous message (which you are, by the way,
authorized to post on POLITICS.TALK.GUNS along with this message),
the primary case for gun availability is moral rather than
statistical.
Even if it could be demonstrated to me that the higher
availability of guns in the United States contributed to
our higher homicide rate, I would argue that the solution is a
better armed and trained public to fight against our obviously
more violent and well-armed criminal class. I do not believe
there is any rational moral or political case to be made for
making innocent people less able to defend themselves from
criminals -- ESPECIALLY if our criminals make us the victims of
violent crimes more often than do criminals in Europe where
guns are less available.
Sincerely,
J. Neil Schulman
Reply to:
J. Neil Schulman
Mail: P.O. Box 94, Long Beach, CA 90801-0094
Voice Mail: (on AT&T) 0-700-22-JNEIL (1-800-CALL-ATT to access AT&T)
Fax: (310) 839-7653
JNS BBS: 1-310-839-7653,,,,25
Internet: [s--ts--v] at [genie.geis.com]
"Mr. Schulman's book is the most cogent explanation of the
gun issue I have yet read. He presents the assault on the Second
Amendment in frighteningly clear terms. Even the extremists who
would ban firearms will learn from his lucid prose."
--CHARLTON HESTON
STOPPING POWER: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns
by J. Neil Schulman
Foreword by Criminologist and Civil-Rights
Lawyer Don B. Kates, Jr.
Published by Synapse--CenturioN
Price: $22.95 USA / $29.95 Canada
ISBN: 1-882639-03-0
Hardcover, 288 pages
PLEASE encourage all gun rights activists to ask the manager or
assistant manager of their local chain bookstore -- B. Dalton,
Waldenbooks, Barnes & Noble, Bookstar, Crown, etc. -- about when
they are getting in STOPPING POWER. This will be an enormous
help in getting the chains to order the book.
"To deter crime, place a gun nut behind the dead bolt." -- JNS
=END=
Command?*
INET01# Document Id: UX00f.BUX0024144
Item 3325053 94/08/17 18:55
From: [S C C 3] at [DELPHI.COM]@INET01# Internet Gateway
To: SOFTSERV J. Neil Schulman
Sub: received and posted
From [S C C 3] at [delphi.com] Thu Aug 18 06:18:38 1994
Received: from bos1c.delphi.com by relay2.geis.com with ESMTP
(1.37.109.10G/15.6) id AA058670718; Thu, 18 Aug 1994 06:18:38 GMT
Return-Path: <[S C C 3] at [delphi.com]>
Received: from delphi.com by delphi.com (PMDF V4.3-9 #6563)
id <[01 HG 16 SNFRNK 988 EMU] at [delphi.com]>; Wed, 17 Aug 1994 22:55:05 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 22:55:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: [S C C 3] at [delphi.com]
Subject: received and posted
To: [s--ts--v] at [genie.geis.com]
Message-Id: <[01 HG 16 SNG 1 AQ 988 EMU] at [delphi.com]>
X-Vms-To: INTERNET"[s--ts--v] at [genie.geis.com]"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Dear Mr. Schulman,
Thank you for your most comprehensive reply to the rebuttal I
forwarded to you from Pim van Meurs, and for your permission to
quote the two messages on talk.politics.guns. It is obvious that
quite some work went into them, and you can be assured that Mr.
van Meurs, myself, and our fellow T.P.G.ers appreciate it. Should
you desire to add anything based on incoming replies to the
queries made to your various sources, I will be happy to post
these as follow-ups.
I agree with you quite strongly that the issue of firearm
availability is primarily a moral, rather than statistical one
(a point borne out quite effectively in your book). Rarely, as
Lowe points out, can one 'prove' anything with statistics. But
alas, as you yourself must know by now, there are those for whom
the argument from social utility is the only (or primary) one.
I feel that such individuals will be satisfied, at least, to see
that the statistical case presented in your reply smoothly and
effectively buttresses the same thesis as that in _Stopping
Power_. It appears that the various data sets are in harmony with
said thesis (gun availability not causal to violent crime) when
reviewed comprehensively.
Thanks again (and to your sources as well). For me it has been
a most informative exchange. I am sure my Usenet peers will
agree.
Steve C. Clark
[S C C 3] at [delphi.com]
=END=
Item 3405658 94/08/18 03:37
From: D.ABHUGH1 Dafydd Ab hugh
To: SOFTSERV J. Neil Schulman
cc: [S C C 3] at [DELPHI.COM]@INTERNET# COMM INTERNET GWY
Sub: Rebuttal of "Stopping Power" s
Dear Neil and whomever else reads this:
Well, perhaps Mr. Pim would get rather a more interesting comparison if he
compared the homicide rate of Colorado Springs - a city - with the homicide
rate of London, Belfast, and Edinborough, rather than with an entire country.
City rates are quite often higher than the country-wide rates.
In any event, the comparison of one country to another is fraught with peril
no matter which side one takes... far more interesting is the comparison of
comparable regions, such as the provinces of Canada with the US states they
border (about half the US states have lower homicide rates than the
adjoining Canadian provinces). One might also point out that the US has a
combined homicide-suicide rate of about 20/100,000, even by the WHO's
figures cited in the response... which is /lower/ than Switzerland's or
Japan's combined homicide-suicide rate, despite the fact that the US is more
gun-saturated than either Japan (obviously) or even Switzerland (perhaps
surprisingly, we have more guns/person than does Switzerland).
This means that the "violent death rate" of the US is lower than that of
Japan, despite Japan's ban on guns, and lower than that of Switzerland,
despite Switzerland's tradition of civic respect.
Finally, the only real comparison to make is to compare a single country
before and after the adoption of gun-control measures and see what happened.
Doing so for Canada and Britain produces no good evidence that their gun-
control laws did a damned thing to lower their violent crime rates, gun-
crime rates, homicide rates, or gun-homicide rates. There is some evidence
that Canada's gun-suicide rate declined, but the overall suicide rate
remained constant, implying a 1 for 1 substitution rate.
Even if a US state or city has open borders, it is mathematically improbable
that a gun-control measure that would be effective with controlled borders
would be /completely ineffective/ with open borders: almost certainly, if
the measure was an effective one discounting smuggling, then it would be
partially effective even with smuggling, since the necessity to smuggle
would make the crime more costly, thus less likely.
However, even in those cities which have instituted draconian gun bans, such
as Washington DC and New York, and those states such as California that have
instituted broad controls such as lengthy waiting periods (fifteen days in
the case of California), there is /no/ good evidence that there was any
reduction in violent crime, etc.
Colin Loftin claimed to have found such in DC and even published an article
in (where else?) the NEJM, vol 325, num 23. However, subsequent analysis by
myself indicates that there are such elementary errors in logic in Loftin's
mathematical analysis that one wonders whether it was peer-reviewed /at
all/... it is quite obvious that it was not peer-reviewed by any
mathematicians.
For example, Loftin's primary "proof" that the DC gun-ban produced the drop
in homicides is the following: he took the mean for several years before
the law was passed and compared it to the mean for several years after the
law was passed and found that the second mean was lower than the first!
This is certainly true. Of course, it would be true for /any decreasing
function whatsoever,/ of any type... including a constant-slope decrease!
Alas, what Loftin needs to show is a /sudden/ decrease shortly after the law
goes into effect, and this he neither shows nor even claims to show. He
does assume later that his "left mean is higher than the right mean"
reasoning somehow translates to a sudden drop right where the law goes into
effect... but that's preposterous nonsense. One also gets just such a "left
mean is higher than the right mean" by drawing the dividing line a year
before the law or a year after the law... thus the line itself is
arbirtary.
If he had any evidence of a sudden drop, he neglected to enlighten us in his
article. The mathematics are so embarassing that I would demand someone
revoke Loftin's "scientist" card, except he doesn't have one (his field is
epidemiology, which is medicine, not science).
And of course, Loftin's data cuts off the year before the massive increase
in DC homicides that made it the "ichiban" murder capital among major cities
for several years running... its gun-ban notwithstanding.
Interestingly, during the period in which DC's homicide rate declined, a
decline which Loftin loftily informs us must have resulted from the gun-ban,
the homicide rate of both the United States as a whole and Canada likewise
declined, by similar amounts, during the same years! Apparently, DC's gun-
ban was so strong, it lowered homicide not only across America but even in
the Great White North. That's some powerful effect for a local city
council! (There was, of course, no nationwide US gun-control law enacted in
the mid-seventies.)
Thus, the case "fewer guns => fewer violent crimes" fails the most basic
test: nobody has ever managed to lower his violent-crime rate by enacting
gun-control measures.
And yes, so long as you spell my name right, you have permission to post
this all over the Internet, on computer bulletin boards, on company
pegboards, or to print it up and mail it to the Hillary Clinton Sewing
Circle.
Dafydd ab Hugh
Writer
8/17/94
=END=
Item 1857634 94/08/18 04:10
From: D.ABHUGH1 Dafydd Ab hugh
To: SOFTSERV J. Neil Schulman
cc: [S C C 3] at [DELPHI.COM]@INTERNET# COMM INTERNET GWY
R.LOWE1 Rick J. Lowe
[T--I] at [CRL.COM]@INET# Internet Gateway
Sub: Rebuttal of "Stopping Power" s
Reply: Item #2332765 from SOFTSERV on 94/08/17 at 14:18
Neil, Rick:
Heh, I wrote my response before receiving and reading Rick's. Amazing on
how many points we said essentially the same thing.
=END=
Item 6928736 94/08/18 10:07
From: SOFTSERV J. Neil Schulman
To: [S C C 3] at [DELPHI.COM]@INET01# Internet Gateway
cc: SOFTSERV J. Neil Schulman
D.ABHUGH1 Dafydd Ab hugh
R.LOWE1 Rick J. Lowe
[T--I] at [CRL.COM]@INET# Internet Gateway
Sub: received and posted
Reply: Item #3325053 from INET01# on 94/08/18 at 02:58
Dear Mr. Clark:
I received the following message from Dafydd ab Hugh, a science
fiction writer with a background in statistics. He's authorized
posting this in TALK.POLITICS.GUNS:
Item 3405658 94/08/18 03:37
From: D.ABHUGH1 Dafydd Ab hugh
To: SOFTSERV J. Neil Schulman
cc: [S C C 3] at [DELPHI.COM]@INTERNET# COMM INTERNET GWY
Sub: Rebuttal of "Stopping Power" s
Dear Neil and whomever else reads this:
Well, perhaps Mr. Pim would get rather a more interesting comparison if he
compared the homicide rate of Colorado Springs - a city - with the homicide
rate of London, Belfast, and Edinborough, rather than with an entire country.
City rates are quite often higher than the country-wide rates.
In any event, the comparison of one country to another is fraught with peril
no matter which side one takes... far more interesting is the comparison of
comparable regions, such as the provinces of Canada with the US states they
border (about half the US states have lower homicide rates than the
adjoining Canadian provinces). One might also point out that the US has a
combined homicide-suicide rate of about 20/100,000, even by the WHO's
figures cited in the response... which is /lower/ than Switzerland's or
Japan's combined homicide-suicide rate, despite the fact that the US is more
gun-saturated than either Japan (obviously) or even Switzerland (perhaps
surprisingly, we have more guns/person than does Switzerland).
This means that the "violent death rate" of the US is lower than that of
Japan, despite Japan's ban on guns, and lower than that of Switzerland,
despite Switzerland's tradition of civic respect.
Finally, the only real comparison to make is to compare a single country
before and after the adoption of gun-control measures and see what happened.
Doing so for Canada and Britain produces no good evidence that their gun-
control laws did a damned thing to lower their violent crime rates, gun-
crime rates, homicide rates, or gun-homicide rates. There is some evidence
that Canada's gun-suicide rate declined, but the overall suicide rate
remained constant, implying a 1 for 1 substitution rate.
Even if a US state or city has open borders, it is mathematically improbable
that a gun-control measure that would be effective with controlled borders
would be /completely ineffective/ with open borders: almost certainly, if
the measure was an effective one discounting smuggling, then it would be
partially effective even with smuggling, since the necessity to smuggle
would make the crime more costly, thus less likely.
However, even in those cities which have instituted draconian gun bans, such
as Washington DC and New York, and those states such as California that have
instituted broad controls such as lengthy waiting periods (fifteen days in
the case of California), there is /no/ good evidence that there was any
reduction in violent crime, etc.
Colin Loftin claimed to have found such in DC and even published an article
in (where else?) the NEJM, vol 325, num 23. However, subsequent analysis by
myself indicates that there are such elementary errors in logic in Loftin's
mathematical analysis that one wonders whether it was peer-reviewed /at
all/... it is quite obvious that it was not peer-reviewed by any
mathematicians.
For example, Loftin's primary "proof" that the DC gun-ban produced the drop
in homicides is the following: he took the mean for several years before
the law was passed and compared it to the mean for several years after the
law was passed and found that the second mean was lower than the first!
This is certainly true. Of course, it would be true for /any decreasing
function whatsoever,/ of any type... including a constant-slope decrease!
Alas, what Loftin needs to show is a /sudden/ decrease shortly after the law
goes into effect, and this he neither shows nor even claims to show. He
does assume later that his "left mean is higher than the right mean"
reasoning somehow translates to a sudden drop right where the law goes into
effect... but that's preposterous nonsense. One also gets just such a "left
mean is higher than the right mean" by drawing the dividing line a year
before the law or a year after the law... thus the line itself is
arbirtary.
If he had any evidence of a sudden drop, he neglected to enlighten us in his
article. The mathematics are so embarassing that I would demand someone
revoke Loftin's "scientist" card, except he doesn't have one (his field is
epidemiology, which is medicine, not science).
And of course, Loftin's data cuts off the year before the massive increase
in DC homicides that made it the "ichiban" murder capital among major cities
for several years running... its gun-ban notwithstanding.
Interestingly, during the period in which DC's homicide rate declined, a
decline which Loftin loftily informs us must have resulted from the gun-ban,
the homicide rate of both the United States as a whole and Canada likewise
declined, by similar amounts, during the same years! Apparently, DC's gun-
ban was so strong, it lowered homicide not only across America but even in
the Great White North. That's some powerful effect for a local city
council! (There was, of course, no nationwide US gun-control law enacted in
the mid-seventies.)
Thus, the case "fewer guns => fewer violent crimes" fails the most basic
test: nobody has ever managed to lower his violent-crime rate by enacting
gun-control measures.
And yes, so long as you spell my name right, you have permission to post
this all over the Internet, on computer bulletin boards, on company
pegboards, or to print it up and mail it to the Hillary Clinton Sewing
Circle.
Dafydd ab Hugh
Writer
8/17/94
=END=
Command?
INET01# Document Id: UX00f.BUX0029385
Item 8056302 94/08/18 14:17
From: [S C C 3] at [DELPHI.COM]@INET01# Internet Gateway
To: SOFTSERV J. Neil Schulman
Sub: Re: received and posted
From [S C C 3] at [delphi.com] Thu Aug 18 22:18:41 1994
Received: from bos2a.delphi.com by relay2.geis.com with ESMTP
(1.37.109.10G/15.6) id AA158408321; Thu, 18 Aug 1994 22:18:41 GMT
Return-Path: <[S C C 3] at [delphi.com]>
Received: from delphi.com by delphi.com (PMDF V4.3-9 #7804)
id <[01 HG 2 BD 5 XDWM 934 TYO] at [delphi.com]>; Thu, 18 Aug 1994 18:17:28 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 18:17:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: [S C C 3] at [delphi.com]
Subject: Re: received and posted
To: [s--ts--v] at [genie.geis.com]
Message-Id: <[01 HG 2 BD 5 XDWO 934 TYO] at [delphi.com]>
X-Vms-To: IN%"[s--ts--v] at [genie.geis.com]"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
I recieved Dafydd Ab hugh's response with great interest and will be
posting it on Usenet as a followup to your own material. Thank you.
=END=
Command?INET00# Document Id: UX00d.BUX0878840
Item 7429884 94/11/22 06:18
From: [K--L--Y] at [CROSS.COM]@INET00# Internet Gateway
To: SOFTSERV J. Neil Schulman
Sub: Re: Carrying guns
From [k--l--y] at [cross.com] Tue Nov 22 16:49:36 1994
Received: from uu9.psi.com by relay2.geis.com with SMTP
(1.37.109.11/15.6) id AA173662974; Tue, 22 Nov 1994 16:49:36 GMT
Return-Path: <[k--l--y] at [cross.com]>
Received: by uu9.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP;
id AA06964 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 94 11:28:56 -0500
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 94 11:18:25 EST
From: [k--l--y] at [cross.com] (kelly caldwell)
Received: from sun7.cross.com (sun7.ARPA) by cross.com (4.1/3.1.090690-AEL-Cross
Systems Division)
id AA04736; Tue, 22 Nov 94 11:18:25 EST
Message-Id: <[9411221618 AA 04736] at [cross.com]>
To: [s--ts--v] at [genie.geis.com]
Subject: Re: Carrying guns
My sister just forwarded me your reply to someone challenging
your references, so to speak. I think this is a VERY valid
question. I, myself, carry with permit and HAVE used a firearm
in defense, so my belief will obviously be slanted..and often
dismissed as an emotional reaction. However, you and I know
that the media and gun control activists often quote absurdly
"off" statistics OR they do NOT tell you the whole story...so
you CAN'T just fight statistics with statistics...you have to
back them up!! The more information YOU provide about your data,
the better it stands on its own.
Backing up your statements (which I agree with whole-heartedly)
is vital to your fight for acceptance...First, what are the
concerns of those that are riding the fence on this issue.
1. Not everyone can be trusted with a gun.
THEN look at Switzerland and determine what effect the
most extreme case of requiring everyone to have a firearm.
What percentage of accidental injuries? child injuries?
Then compare them to accidental deaths - auto related.
Then there is Kennesaw, GA....Keep in mind that these
may be skewed by the addition of accidental deaths from
police officers or an accidental death DURING a robbery
or such...
2. There is almost NO way to bypass the justice system...
what is the percentage of shootings, deaths etc. caused
by someone previously convicted of a violent crime or has
a previous record?
We have to be concerned that our justice system is screwing us out
of justice...there is NO restitution demanded, there is no punishment
addequate enough to be considered a deterent, etc. Until we MANDATE
that our citizens are accountable for their own actions, instead of
saying "Gee, I guess you just had a bad day when you slaughtered 20
innocent people on the subway and therefore, we'll forgive you..."
How could we possibly feel safe knowing that there is NO justice whether
or not everyone in the US carries a weapon.
My intent was not to lecture you, but hopefully, to strengthen your
presentation...no matter how many books you quote, you cannot support
your argument without good strong statistical data. Who took the pole?
What are some comparable statistics? How were they derived? Who stands
behind them? etc...Yes, these may be in those books...but only good
to those willing to read them.
A suggestion, a great example is a tape by Dr. Greg Bahnsen called
"God and Guns" who backs it up scriptually and statistically. Let me
know if you would like more information...I'll be glad to forward it
on.
tk
=END=
--------------D4C22C870E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="WEBTAG"
*****
VISIT J. NEIL SCHULMAN ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB!
Download Paperless Books, read Recent Articles, find out
Upcoming Personal Appearances, find out how to order Schulman's
books and what reviewers are saying about them.
http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/
Reply to:
J. Neil Schulman
Mail: P.O. Box 94, Long Beach, CA 90801-0094
Voice Mail & Fax: (500) 44-JNEIL
Internet: [j--e--l] at [loop.com]
--------------D4C22C870E--