On Thu, 07 Jan 1999 23:27:54 GMT, csmkersh@flash.net (Sam A. Kersh)
wrote:

>mcculloch@mail.utexas.edu (Jim McCulloch) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Jan 1999 18:20:21 GMT, "M. Eglestone"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Let's look at total population of the U.S. and gun involved crimes,
>>>shooting, deaths and injuries for a 12 month period. There are 271+
>>>million people living in this country. If you add up ALL the figures
>>>that involve death or injury by guns, excluding self defense, you
>>>still have LESS than 1 percent of the population involved. It's more
>>>on the order of .015 percent of the Total U.S. Population that are
>>>directly or indirectly effected by the presents of guns.
>>>
>>> Which sort of indicates that 99 percent of the population is
>>>"perfectly safe" from gun related incidents each year and, that guns
>>>are not much of a problem. Any time you can ASSURE 99 percent of the
>>>population that they WILL be safe from anything, you're doing good.
>>>
>>> Go ahead and do the figures yourself. Take the total population of
>>>this country as your base figure. Add up ALL the categories of gun
>>>related deaths or injuries that you can get your hands on. If the
>>>figures total more than 1 percent of our population (per year) I'll
>>>eat my hat. I was perfectly satisfied when I thought it was around 2
>>>percent, but I couldn't even get the figures up THAT high when I did
>>>the math.
>>>
>>> Folks, there are RISK factors involved in all activities that life
>>>presents to us. The risk factors involved in gun ownership just to NOT
>>>warrant all the fuss that's being made over the subject.
>>>
>>> Mike Eglestone
>>
>>Thanks, Mike, for a diversion from the ongoing discussion, your
>>remarks having nothing at all to do with my post or with anyone
>>else's, as far as I can tell.
>>
>>Your reasoning puzzles me, though.  If we are at low risk for
>>something, like, say, murder, we should conclude that the low risk
>>factors involved do not warrant all the fuss that's being made over
>>the subject?  You sure you want to say something like that on such
>>newsgroups as tx.guns and talk.politics.guns?  
>
>Well, Jim, you've made an issue of confiscation of privately owned
>firearms in the so-called name of public safety when, in fact, the vast
>majority of firearms are never involved in a crime.  Specifically, per
>the 25th Edition of the DoJ Sourcebook, 1997, there were 482,954 violent
>crimes committed with a firearm.  This is less than two tenths of one
>percent of all firearms in the U.S.--- but apparently you would outlaw
>the remaining 99.8% just to get at the criminal....  A little paranoid,
>yes?
>
>
>Note:  Refer to Table 3.116, DoJ Sourcebook, 1997, page 274 and NCJ
>pamphlet NCJ-148201 for data on firearms related crime and total
>firearms stockage.
>
> 
>Sam A. Kersh
>NRA Life Member
>LEAA Life
>TSRA L-111738
>JPFO
>Training is Sergeant's Business
>http://www.flash.net/~csmkersh/


Jeez Sam.  Did you note the address?  This is NOT an Aggie - logic
will get you nowhere!