Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 v7 ucbtopaz-1.8; site ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!ucbvax!ucbtopaz!phoenix
From: phoenix@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame,net.legal
Subject: Re: Re: Personal Defense
Message-ID: <893@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 12-Apr-85 04:45:30 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbtopaz.893
Posted: Fri Apr 12 04:45:30 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 14-Apr-85 03:30:30 EST
References: <350@idis.UUCP> <497@abnji.UUCP> <572@ahuta.UUCP> <498@lll-crg.ARPA> <419@utai.UUCP>
Reply-To: phoenix@ucbtopaz.UUCP ()
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Berkeley CA USA
Lines: 41
Xref: watmath net.politics:8505 net.flame:9237 net.legal:1551
Summary: More innocents injured by far...

Keywords:


In article <419@utai.UUCP> west@utai.UUCP (Thomas L. West) writes:
>Eugene D. Brooks III writes:
>>I agree that the probability of good citizens getting hurt accidentally
>>goes up by epsilon each time a good citizen carries a weapon.  You are
>>missing an important factor that offsets this negative.  A good citizen
>>carrying a weapon is in a position to help someone else being attacked.
>>The probability of a well trained individual helping another is far greater
>>than hurting someone by accident.
>
>   Hold it right there.  Do you have *any* facts, figures, articles or
>*anything* to back this up.  My strong guess is that you are 180 degrees
>out, and that far more people are injured by "good citizens" than are
>"saved" by other "good citizens" coming to their rescue.  All I ask for
>is *one* figure.  (No, I don't know how you'd go about compiling it!)
>However, a look at the papers in cities small enough to still be reporting
>deaths should give an indication.  How many criminals were shot compared
>to how many innocents (shot by innocents).
>  Of course, if you *are* correct, this implies that without guns all over
>the place, the US crime rate would be even *higher*.  I am not sure, 
>but I have a feeling this *can't* be true.  I mean, the US is not at
>war, is it?
>
>   Tom West
>ihnp4!utcsri!west


Tom is right.  The last figures I read (*Warning*, almost a year dated) showed
that private *handguns*, bought explicitly for protection, were fired 6 out
of 7 times at family or friends, in anger or on accident - not at assailants
for *protection*.  Pretty startling, huh?  The figure does not, of course,
include rifles and other guns which are not as *commenly* used against loved
ones.  I am searching for the source, so I will get back to you, but I remember
it as being rather reliable....

                                         (Crises? .....What Crises?)

                                          John
                                          phoenix@ucbtopaz