Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!pesnta!pertec!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame,net.legal
Subject: Re: Re: Personal Defense
Message-ID: <117@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Apr-85 12:11:15 EST
Article-I.D.: kontron.117
Posted: Wed Apr 24 12:11:15 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Apr-85 08:34:54 EST
References: <350@idis.UUCP> <497@abnji.UUCP> <572@ahuta.UUCP> <498@lll-crg.ARPA> <419@utai.UUCP> <893@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA>
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA
Lines: 56
Xref: watmath net.politics:8665 net.flame:9500 net.legal:1602

> 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

The "6 out of 7 uses" statistic is an example of a misleading statistic.
*Most* confrontations between victim and criminal where the intended victim
is armed do *not* result in a shooting.  The criminal goes and looks for an
easier victim.  I have yet to see any statistics comparing the number of
uses of a firearm to scare off a criminal vs. the number of uses of a firearm
to frighten, injure, or kill an acquaintance.

Several years ago, the State of California's Department of Justice polled 
Californians and found that 8% had used a weapon of some sort (which includes 
things besides firearms) to defend themselves or property against criminal 
attack.  (In fact, I know one person who has done so.)  I would be very 
surprised if 8% of the population has used a weapon against an acquaintance.  
If you can find some statistics on this, they might be interesting, but of
questionable accuracy, since most domestic violence isn't reported.