in reply to Principle of Inclusion

Actually . . . there's statistical evidence to suggest that more lax firearms laws lead to reduced violent crime rates

In 2001, the USA suffered 29,573 deaths by gunshot from a total population of 285,317,572.

In 2001, the UK suffered 167 deaths by gunshot from a total population of 58,789,194.

In 2000, 75,685 people were treated for non-fatal gunshot injuries in the USA.

In 2000, 102 people were treated for non-fatal gonshot injuries in the UK (England and Wales).

You might *feel* you are safer due to your right to bear arms, but you aren't.

And your feeling about OSs is equally coloured by what you want to believe, rather than reality.

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Principle of Inclusion
by Anonymous Monk on May 18, 2006 at 21:53 UTC
    Do many people care what method/instrument was used to murder them? Wouldn't a better statistic be the overall murder rate?
    • United States  --     0.042802  per 1,000 people
    • United Kingdom --     0.0140633 per 1,000 people
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
    A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
Re^2: Principle of Inclusion
by Anonymous Monk on May 18, 2006 at 23:32 UTC
    In 2001, the USA suffered 29,573 deaths by gunshot
    Can you please provide the source for your data? The FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program lists 8890 murders by firearms. And it looks like there were 14758 firearm suicides in 2001.

    Thanks.

[reply]

      Gun deaths in USA 2001

      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]
[d/l]

        If it's on the internet then it must be true :)

        Whilst I'm firmly on your side of this debate, that source isn't exactly compelling. It doesn't say where any of those numbers come from.

        --
        <http://dave.org.uk>

        "The first rule of Perl club is you do not talk about Perl club."
        -- Chip Salzenberg

[reply]
          A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
      Personally, I'm not worried about criminals with guns, I'm worried about idiots with guns.

      From your cdc link: "and an estimated 29,721,821 persons with nonfatal injuries...27,551,362 (92.7%) were unintentional"

[reply]

        Bizarrely, where gunownership among criminals is higher, the death rate during commission of a crime may be lower.

        I remember an article in Scientific American where this minor statistic popped up: when a robber has a gun (I remember a Chicago cop saying that if the mugger has a gun, the mugger will show the gun: he wants you to know he's armed) the victim will tend to say "yes, sir" and give the thief what is wanted (usually money). When the thief is not showing a gun, or is armed with (say) a knife, there is more chance the victim will try to fight back, which (for most people) is a bad idea.

        emc

        "Being forced to write comments actually improves code, because it is easier to fix a crock than to explain it. "
        —G. Steele
[reply]
        A high percentage of idiots with guns are goverment employees, like Dick Chaney.
[reply]
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

In Section Meditations