From: Michael S. Lorrey (mike@lorrey.com)
Date: Mon Jun 07 1999 - 17:24:20 MDT
"Joe E. Dees" wrote:
> Date sent: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 16:38:27 -0400
> From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <mike@lorrey.com>
> > >
> > > Ho hum, emotional rhetoric, yes, that's really going to convince people. BTW,
> > > the number of murders and the number of shooting accidents (which often
> > > include suicides classified as 'accidents' by the cops for various reasons)
> > > have been going down for years; so why is this 'clearly out of control'?
> >
> > yes, the only activities which are at lower risk are civil aviation, getting
> > struck by lightning, and a few others. The firearns accident rates for children
> > and overall are less than a tenth of the rates at the turn of the century.
> >
> Au contraire; the number of people in the US who died of gunshot-
> related injuries in 1995 was 32,909. These figures were furnished
> by James R. Peterson, a progun activist, in the August issue of
> Playboy Magazine. This is less than the number killed on the
> highway the same year, but not by a whole lot.
These are accident rates, not crime rates. Get your facts straight. Accidental gunshot
related injuries for 1995 for people under 15 or 18 was about 250. Using suicides or
criminal on criminal gun violence as justification for controlling law abiding usage
is insane, about as insane as using government perpetrated gun crime in europe to
justify taking civilian guns away.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:02 MST