N&O'S "FACTS" ABOUT GUN CONTROL (WAS
Howard M. Fried
Green - APE, Advanced Products Engineer) wrote:
[.........]
> actual data into your argument, Dr. Gary Kleck, PhD and professor of
> Criminology and Criminal Justice, estimates that there are up to 2.1
> million defensive uses of firearms each year in America. [......]
I do not want to get into a debate over the positive or negative aspects of
guns; I merely have a question or two. I've seen a range of numbers quoted
as to the defensive uses of firearms. Last December someone mailed me the
statistic that guns were used 600,000 times in preventing crimes in the US;
the source of information was a gov't agency but I'm sorry I do not
remember which. Shortly thereafter I read in a document put out by
Democrats for the Second Amendment that the number was about 1.2 million
(no source for the data was cited). Dr. Kleck estimates the number to be
2.1 million. Does the term "defensive use of firearms" refer to the
stopping or preventing of a crime at the moment it is about to be committed
or during its progress, or does the term also include an estimate of crimes
that never actually got started because of the prevalance of firearms? I
have absolutely no doubt that firearms are used successfuly to prevent
crimes, and I'm grateful for that. I'm just curious as to the nearly
4-fold spread in numbers cited for the frequency. All of the data must be
estimates, since most crimes that are thwarted, I presume, go unreported.
Perhaps then a factor of 4 variance is not unreasonable.
Are Dr. Kleck's findings published?
Thanks.
Howard M. Fried "Criticism is prejudice made plausible."
University of North Carolina H. L. Mencken
at Chapel Hill
Ed Green - APE, Advanced Products Engineer
the discussion here in politics, OK?
In article 070494...@asante.med.unc.edu, ref...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (Howard M. Fried) writes:
>> Dr. Gary Kleck, PhD and professor of
>> Criminology and Criminal Justice, estimates that there are up to 2.1
>> million defensive uses of firearms each year in America.
>
>Last December someone mailed me the
>statistic that guns were used 600,000 times in preventing crimes in the US;
>the source of information was a gov't agency but I'm sorry I do not
>remember which. Shortly thereafter I read in a document put out by
>Democrats for the Second Amendment that the number was about 1.2 million
>(no source for the data was cited). Dr. Kleck estimates the number to be
>2.1 million.
Hmmm... I think I owe an apology here. I quoted 2.1M from a net
reprint of an American Rifleman article. From the article I included
below, it seems that Kleck's estimate is 1.2M (probably the source for
the Democrats you mention above). I don't know if the number was
misquoted in the net article, or in the AR article (AR is a publication
of the NRA). In any event, I should verify my numbers better before
throwing them around. Sorry.
>Does the term "defensive use of firearms" refer to the
>stopping or preventing of a crime at the moment it is about to be committed
>or during its progress, or does the term also include an estimate of crimes
>that never actually got started because of the prevalance of firearms? I
>have absolutely no doubt that firearms are used successfuly to prevent
>crimes, and I'm grateful for that. I'm just curious as to the nearly
>4-fold spread in numbers cited for the frequency. All of the data must be
>estimates, since most crimes that are thwarted, I presume, go unreported.
>Perhaps then a factor of 4 variance is not unreasonable.
Well, first off, it looks like the spread is merely 2-fold. :^)
I can't say that there is a uniform definition of "defensive use." In
Dr. Kleck's research, it is the former of the two you offered. Other
sources of statistics may well use a different definition, which is
probably one source of error. I believe the more serious source of the
discrepancy is the second problem you mention, reported vs. estimated
incidents, which really gets into methodology of data acquisition. The
FBI Uniform Crime Reports, generally cited as the authoritative
"government estimates," cover only reported crimes. Kleck sought out
information by calling randomly generated phone numbers and asking
questions. Other sources of statistics on the subject acquire their
data in other ways.
>Are Dr. Kleck's findings published?
Yes. Attached are a pointer towards ordering the book (which I need to
do... to keep me honest on the net if nothing else), and a newspaper
article about it.
-Ed
Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America
Aldine de Gruyter
200 Saw Mill River Rd.
Hawthorne, NY 10532
914-747-0110
You can order direct from the publisher. It costs about $60.
Price on the book by Kleck is $59.95 plus $3.50 S&H in the U.S. Its number
is 0-202-30419-1.
The Sunday Republican, Waterbury, Connecticut
August 22, 1993 pg. 1A2
Scholar's book blows gun control arguments out of the water
By Michael Browning
Knight-Ridder Newspapers
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- Gary Kleck never set out to become the
academic darling of the National Rifle Association. That is a
wholly unlooked-for byproduct of his research on guns in America
"I am treated as a hero by people with whom I have
absolutely nothing in common," said the slender professor of
criminology at Florida State University. "I'm a stereotypical
liberal. I belong to the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union),
Common Cause, several environmental groups. I am a paying
member of the Democratic Party."
But Kleck, 42, is also the author of a controversial book,
"Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America," whose conclusions
challenge much of the accepted wisdom about gun use and abuse in
the United States, as well as undermining many of the strongest
arguments for gun control.
Through 512 pages of statistical research, tables and
footnotes, Kleck makes the case that guns are twice as likely to
be used defensively as aggressively; that they thwart crime far
more often than they abet it; that their availability has little
or no impact on provoking violence; they are far more likely to
be owned by law-abiding citizens than by criminals; that banning
certain classes of guns, such as handguns or automatic weapons,
is futile; and that guns serve a useful purpose in protecting a
large, non-violent majority of "victims" from a violent minority
of criminals.
Kleck favors gun control but says most current schemes for
gun control are silly, unrealistic and unworkable, given the fact
that there are about 200 million guns in the United States now,
and that 45 percent of all American households have one or more
of them.
Instead of targeting certain types of guns -- handguns,
"Saturday Night Specials," assault rifles and so on -- and
attempting to drive them out of circulation, Kleck says we should
target certain types of people -- those with criminal records,
those who are mentally disturbed, those with a high potential for
violence -- and deny them all guns, any type of gun, long or
short, fast or slow, by means of rigorous background checks and
stiff penalties for obtaining weapons illegally.
"I regard the NRA's knee-jerk response to gun-control
proposals -- get tough on criminals, build more jails -- as even
dumber than the gun-control lobby's agenda. It is like the NRA
is playing poker with the gun control lobby and saying `I'll call
your stupidity and raise you one.'"
His controversial book costs $60 and scarcely 10,000 copies
have been printed for the scholar and library market, so it isn't
likely to reach a mass audience.
His book has stirred a lively debate in some academic
circles. His opponents say Kleck's research looks impressive,
but some of it is based on flimsy foundations and flawed surveys,
and that he has therefore leaped to conclusions.
In fact, Kleck says he was somewhat surprised at the results
of his research.
"Before I undertook this study I had all the normal
preconceptions. I was a pro-control academic. I believed
instinctively that people should not have guns," he says.
"But I learned that those reactions were based on very
shallow research. no one really knew much about this question
until the mid-1970s.
"Gradually I came to see that the best available evidence
did not support the case that is usually made for gun control;
that guns automatically lead to violence.
"I learned that the subgroups of the population who owned
the most guns -- the old and the wealthy -- demonstrated the
least violence; while the subgroups of the population who were
least likely to own guns, the young and the poor, tended to be
the most violent."
Here again, Kleck draws fire from his critics: "He tends to
break the whole population down into two neat categories: Victims
and aggressors," McDowall said. "I think in many assaults it is
very difficult to tell who is the victim and who is the
aggressor."
Kleck's most controversial funding, the one that has most
endeared him to the NRA, is this: The number of times guns are
used defensively is probably twice as great as the number of
times they are used criminally.
"All my statistics indicate that there are at least 600,000
cases a year of guns being used criminally, both reported and
unreported cases. But: The number of instances in which guns are
used defensively is on the order of 1.2 million times a year."
Here again, however, Kleck's critics have attacked his
research. "The National Crime Survey, a survey conducted by the
government, indicated that guns are used defensively only 60-
65,000 times each year," McDowall said. "There is a huge
discrepancy between Kleck's figures and these figures."
Kleck defends his research as sound. "We called up 4,977
households scattered throughout the 48 contiguous states. The
telephone numbers were randomly generated by a computer. We took
all responses in confidence, and made sure that the times when a
gun was used was against a person, not against a rattlesnake or
some animal. We were measuring cases of guns being used against
people who were committing criminal acts," he said.
"I just point out that if you are a victim with a gun you
are likely to be successful in defending yourself from a criminal
attack. You are less likely to get hurt if you have a gun. That
is not my opinion. That is a statistical fact."
---
Ed Green Ed.G...@East.Sun.COM DoD #0111 (919)460-8302
Howard M. Fried
For some reason my newsposter is having problems quoting your reply but
thanks for the claification on the statistics. So many numbers do seem to
get tossed around on these issues, after a while everything seems to be
both plausible and implausible.
I do now remember. I think the article and the info on Kleck's book have
been posted before. From the comments in the article, there is still a
good deal of controversy; perhaps that will spur others to do more
investigating. Thank's again. I'm afraid, though, I may have to stroll on
down to the library. Sixty bucks seems a bit steep for anti-gun guy like
me--just kiddin' folks ;)
Howard M. Fried
Disque) wrote:
> Getting tough on criminals is stupid? Well, I guess Singapore is
> pretty stupid then, if what I've been hearing about it due to the
> scheduled whipping of the American vandal is true. Judging from
> the letters and calls Singapore officials are getting from Americans,
> many of us would like this country to be as stupid as Singapore.
I wonder what sorts of gun control laws exist in Singapore? More strict
than in the US? Less? Anyone know? I'm sure of one thing. If control is
tighter in Singapore than the US, most Americans would not want this
country to be as stupid a Singapore.
Lance A. Brown
> I wonder what sorts of gun control laws exist in Singapore? More strict
> than in the US? Less? Anyone know? I'm sure of one thing. If control is
> tighter in Singapore than the US, most Americans would not want this
> country to be as stupid a Singapore.
Recently, one of the more reputable (I can't remember which) TV news
shows did a segment on Singapore and why it has become the latest
"Great Place to Be". The government has cracked down on -everything-,
HARD. The streets are spotlessly clean because littering will get you
a large fine and a mandatory anti-littering school visit. You will be
caught littering because of the monitoring that now occurs.
I expect the gun laws over there are equally as harsh in relative
terms.
Lance
--
-- Lance
Steve Raxter P860
> .....I am truly astounded! What began as a discussion on a April
> Fools prank by two radio personalities has turned into yet another
> discussion on gun control. Not that I'm against the discussion of
> gun control... it's just an odd migration, that's all.
>
> BUT, while we're on the subject, I always thought it odd that
> the semi-automatic handgun has been singled out for the ban. That would
> leave revolvers, which, if I'm not mistaken, are generally not only
> more powerful, but also more accurate. Obviously they hold less bullets
> than some semi-auto's, but what else?
If I am not mistaken "revolvers" would fall under the catagory of "semi-automatic"
I understand the term to mean one shot for one pull (oops... I mean squeeze) of the
trigger and no reloading between shots. Thats my whole problem with this type of
language in a law. This definition of semi-auto would include just about any gun
made.
>
> Oh, and just in case someone gets the wrong idea about how I stand
> on this issue, here it is. I believe that the Constitution is pretty
> clear on the issue of possesion of firearms. I do not believe that
> everyone should, nor do I want everyone to own a firearm. It is clearly
> a matter of choice to the individual.
>
> ...By the way, does anyone know where you can find good
> bar-b-que around here? : )
>
>
> "They're MY opinions, do you hear? MINE!"
>
>
S.Raxter- American
John Asa Price
>
>If the crime rate were as low as Singapore's, I daresay most Americans
>would not feel the NEED to own a gun.
Most people in China don't feel a NEED to own a gun. At least they
don't express it.
The also don't feel a NEED for religion. At least they don't
express it.
The also don't feel a NEED for free expression. At least they
don't express it. The few who do are punished pretty severly.
Nice system. Really keeps the criminals in check.
--
John Asa Price SAS Institute, Inc.
internet: sas...@unx.sas.com (919) 677-8000 ext 6976
Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of SAS Institute, Inc.
Ed Green - APE, Advanced Products Engineer
>
>If the crime rate were as low as Singapore's, I daresay most Americans
>would not feel the NEED to own a gun.
I've owned a wide variety of guns all my life, and never felt a NEED
for it. Well, I do in the sense that I NEED a shotgun because I can't
throw a rock high enough to knock a bird out of the sky... :^)
If the crime rate were a low as Singapore's, you are probably correct,
most Americans would need feel a NEED to own a gun (for the purpose of
self-defense). I futher daresay most of us would still CHOOSE to own
guns. Constitutionally guaranteed rights are nice that way... you
don't have to demonstrate a NEED for them, to exercise them.
David V. Phillips
>In article <LAB.94Ap...@biostat15.mc.duke.edu>, l...@biostat.mc.duke.edu (Lance A. Brown) writes:
>|> Howard M Fried <ref...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu> writes:
>|>
>|> I wonder what sorts of gun control laws exist in Singapore? More strict
>|> than in the US? Less? Anyone know? I'm sure of one thing. If control is
>|> tighter in Singapore than the US, most Americans would not want this
>|> country to be as stupid a Singapore.
>If the crime rate were as low as Singapore's, I daresay most Americans
>would not feel the NEED to own a gun.
If the methods used in Singapore to achieve the low crime rate were
used in America, I'd venture that many Americans *would* feel the need
to own guns.
--
David Phillips sas...@unx.sas.com SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC
"They that can give up an essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety". -- Benjamin Franklin (1759)
"Gun control works. Ask Schindler's Jews."
Lance A. Brown
> If the crime rate were as low as Singapore's, I daresay most Americans
> would not feel the NEED to own a gun.
Are you willing to give up your privacy rights in order to gain the
low crime rate that Singapore enjoys? Singapore has achieved what it
has by creating a massive survelliance system that WILL catch you at
most things. I am not interested in living in such a place.
Lance
Thomas Disque
Are you saying that's the only way to lower the crime rate? What
ARE you willing to do to lower the crime rate?
Also, I'd like to point out that my statement above is based on my
opinion that the majority of gun owners in America today own these
guns because of their fear of crime. Do you agree? Disagree? Does
anyone have any stats on this?
Tom Disque
"My opinions, not SAS Institute's"
Joe B. Simpson
decides to address my points on the N&O's loose play with the gun-control
facts, I'll reply next week.
-joe
--
"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes.
By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that.
...If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."
-Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson
Lou Caltrider
l...@biostat.mc.duke.edu (Lance A. Brown) writes:
|> Thomas Disque <dis...@sauron.unx.sas.com> writes:
|>
|> > pretty stupid then, if what I've been hearing about it due to the
|> > scheduled whipping of the American vandal is true. Judging from
|> > the letters and calls Singapore officials are getting from Americans,
|>
|> Are you aware of the _1984_-style monitoring that goes on in
|> Singapore? They reason it has become such a peace-loving,
|> walk-anywhere-at-night place is because of the cameras all over the
|> place. Sure is nice, but the lack of privacy bothers me.
You have no privacy in public places.
|>
|> So does a $1000.00 (Singapore?) Dollar fine and mandatory
|> "no-littering school" for dropping a wrapper on the ground.
Unless you like to drop wrappers on the ground, why would this bother
you?
When will the stupid people of Singapore understand that it isn't nice
to punish people. A much simpler, nicer and effective way to prevent
people from dropping wrappers would be to BAN WRAPPERS.
Since they don't seem to enjoy graffiti like Americans they should
have banned spray paint. Then the poor little American boy with no
respect for other people's property would not be in such trouble.
|>
|> Lance
|> --
|> -- Lance
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lou Caltrider lo...@bnr.ca | My view only. BNR has none.
BNR INC. (919) 991-8492 |
P.O. Box 13478 |
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3478 |
Lance A. Brown
believe there are significant differences between what happens here
(U.S.) and in Singapore.
Most video cameras, etc. are installed and used by private indiviuals
or companies here. If memory serves, Singapore's government provides
the monitoring there. This is a huge difference IMO.
It is one thing to have cameras installed in KMart by KMart to monitor
shoplifting. It is another to have the state of NC or the Federal
government install those cameras and monitor them.
Lance
Marc Sabansky
from the Opinion Page Copy Editor, Allen Torrey. It was in response
to a letter(s?) I wrote to the paper correcting their claim that
Brady _required_ a background check. Here is the body of the letter:
=========================
December 14, 1993
Thanks for writing us about the Brady Bill. I'm sure you know a lot
more about its provisions than I do.
However, the checking that I've been able to do does not confirm your
contention that the bill (now law) does not require a background check
on handgun purchasers. Both the Associated Press and Reuters news
services, in recent articles giving details of the bill, say that such
checks are indeed "required". So do newspapers ranging from The New
York Times to The Wall Street Journal (and I would think that The
Journal, which is highly skeptical of gun control, would have every
reason to point out flaws and shortcomings in the law).
Yours is the second letter I've received that makes this same point.
Perhaps it is a matter of wording or interpretation. If so, I'd
welcome enlightenment if you'd care to write again. But in view of
the published information I don't think I can print your letter as it
is.
(signed Allen Torrey)
==========================
Well, they _did_ publish my letter intact, after I sent a copy of
Torrey's letter and the FULL text of the Brady Law to the publisher,
Frank Daniels Jr. This clearly shows what the level of journalism is
for the N&O, they rely on other newspapers and wire services for
their "facts". The last sentence is the killer - "But in view
of the published information...", I guess the original text of the Brady
Bill wasn't considered to be "published" information?
Oh yeah, I forgot to say that I called Allen Torrey to confront his
idiocy. After reaming him for not using original source material, I
mentioned that US News & World Report accurately reported on the Brady
Law - and agreed with me that a background check is not required.
His response was that he could check on it, and if true, then he would
print my letter!!!!! Still relying on non-primary sources!
He asked if I thought the _effect_ or intent of the Brady Law would
result in background checks being performed, and if so, then isn't
that the same as "requiring" a background check? I couldn't believe
his logic!
I finally had to cancel my subscription (weekend only as it was) to the
N&O because of their bias - my blood pressure would just get too high
whenever I would read their articles. I'm much happier now not
reading the News & Disturber.
Marc Sabransky
Howard M. Fried
Sabansky) wrote:
[snip]
> I finally had to cancel my subscription (weekend only as it was) to the
> N&O because of their bias - my blood pressure would just get too high
> whenever I would read their articles. I'm much happier now not
> reading the News & Disturber.
>
> Marc Sabransky
If you do read some other newspaper regularly, I'm just curious to know
what unbiased paper it is. I doubt there is any such thing as an unbiased
newspaper. Newspapers should indeed attempt to print the facts
accurately, if they see their role as informing the public. But all major
papers take positions on issues of social and political importance--one
only needs to look at the editorials. To me that says that newspapers view
their role as something more than simply passing on information. Just my
$0.02.
Al Cohen
In article <refried-14...@asante.med.unc.edu>, ref...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (Howard M. Fried) writes:
>
>If you do read some other newspaper regularly, I'm just curious to know
>what unbiased paper it is. I doubt there is any such thing as an unbiased
>newspaper. Newspapers should indeed attempt to print the facts
>accurately, if they see their role as informing the public. But all major
>papers take positions on issues of social and political importance--one
>only needs to look at the editorials. To me that says that newspapers view
>their role as something more than simply passing on information. Just my
>$0.02.
>
I agree - there are no unbiased newspapers (at least I haven't found one).
Therefore, I don't subscribe to any newspaper. I won't even take the free
one they're always pushing outside Wal-Mart (I don't have a bird).
--
Al Cohen "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
SAS Institute Inc. security of a free State, the right of the people
sas...@unx.sas.com to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
(919)677-8001 x7117 -- Amendment II, Bill of Rights
Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface.
GORE IN '94
Robert Brady Jr.
writes:
>I agree - there are no unbiased newspapers (at least I haven't found one).
>Therefore, I don't subscribe to any newspaper. I won't even take the free
>one they're always pushing outside Wal-Mart (I don't have a bird).
This may be true but were can you get unbiased news? If a publication
does not parrot our view, we usually think it is biased. That is the
challenge, trying to get the news out of papers and magazines. Not
always an easy task. Read the paper -- the N&O and the others -- and
hold them to task if you don't agree or feel they are biased. I think
the sign of a good paper is when both sides write and complain about
coverage. While that doesn't mean the paper is not throwing in opinion
for fact, at least they are being fair about it.
Donna O'Malley
>In article <2ojlhu$a...@news.duke.edu>, marc...@acpub.duke.edu (Marc
>Sabansky) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> I finally had to cancel my subscription (weekend only as it was) to the
>> N&O because of their bias - my blood pressure would just get too high
>> whenever I would read their articles. I'm much happier now not
>> reading the News & Disturber.
>>
>> Marc Sabransky
>
>If you do read some other newspaper regularly, I'm just curious to know
>what unbiased paper it is. I doubt there is any such thing as an unbiased
>newspaper. Newspapers should indeed attempt to print the facts
>accurately, if they see their role as informing the public. But all major
>papers take positions on issues of social and political importance--one
>only needs to look at the editorials. To me that says that newspapers view
>their role as something more than simply passing on information. Just my
>$0.02.
>
I agree that all papers have a bias. However, I wish it would show up
only on their opinion pages. Unfortunately, the "News" pages are also
filled with bias and opinion. It takes an intelligent reader with a
significant amount of time to decipher the facts and the opinions.
Since newspapers don't show any signs of changing there reporting methods,
I guess the best solution is to make sure you get your information from
many sources on both sides of an issue. This is the best way to try and
distinguish the facts from the opinion, and form your own informed opinion.
---
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/// ///
/// D. O'Malley ///My opinions are mine and mine alone/// ///
/// ///
/// Support the Putting Families First Tax Agenda ///
/// A $500 per child tax credit /// /// ///
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Lou Caltrider
Your net address indicates that you already live in such a place.
Have you ever noticed the video cameras at the self serve gas stations,
convenience stores, banks, and many retail outlets? Many retail stores
also have floor walkers, malls have security forces. Most large employers
have video monitoring systems and security forces. Police cruise our
streets and highways. Even Duke has its own police force to patrol the
campus. You might want to look behind you!
Undercover police, drug enforcement agents, BATF agents, FBI agents, CIA
agents, and who knows how many more crime fighting undercover agents walk
amoung us. Anyone can hire a private detective to find you, trail you, and
learn more about you than you may know yourself. And then there is the
IRS which can track down every penny you ever made.
If you haven't left yet I can probably think of more.
Marc Sabansky
the problem is when the news source confuses their bias, or "editorial
opinion" with fact. Having an editorial opinion or bias does not
justify ignoring fact, or printing falsehoods. Ignoring primary source
information should not be part of bias, sticking ones head in the sand
should not be part of bias (maybe stupidity...) (I'm referring to
news sources, not anyone in this group).
In one of my letters to the N&O I specifically told them that I accept bias
and editorial opinion, as long as it is made clear to the reader. But the
N&O really twists what little truth they print to support their bias.
Maybe this is really too ideal a thought, but shouldn't news media inform
the reader/viewer in a way so they can decide for themselves what they
think about a given topic? I agree, if the paper has an opinion, then
put it on the editorial page, but don't leave out facts, or print
falsehoods - under the guise of journalism - to support an editorial bias.
I'm not sure how my original post resulted in this bias thread, but the
inclusion of that letter was to show what little regard the N&O has for
the facts, and the reasoning process for justifying what they print -
relying on other newspapers for "facts". The point is, how many other
articles (on topics other than "gun control") simply rely on parroting
other newspapers rather than using primary source material??? This goes
beyond any bias issue, the question becomes how can we trust them when
they claim they are printing the "factual truth"?
Maybe we need licensing for journalists...
Marc Sabransky
Thomas Disque
I read the N&O for the opinions of the left, and listen to Rush
Limbaugh for the opinions of the right. It may not be perfect, but
it's the best way I know of to achieve balance.
Tom Disque
"my opinions, not SAS Institute's"
Nicholas Johnson
In article <1994Apr12.154100.24229@d randy pafford writes....
>In fact, your statement is most probably wrong. One good poll on this
>subject (there have been several) was done in 1978. The poll asked
>people the _primary_ reason they owned guns. The results were as follows.
>
>primary reason any type of gun handgun
>
>self defense at home 20% 40%
>self defense at work 1% 5%
>law enforcement 3% 8%
>target shooting 10% 17%
>hunting 54% 9%
>just like them 3% 6%
>no response 2% 1%
>
>The numbers don't add up to 100% in the columns; I probably got
>a couple of numbers wrong while copying them this morning.
>
Or maybe you forgot to copy down the important categories of "sticking up
convenience stores," "committing random acts of violence," and of course
"defeating the barbarians at Armageddon."
nick
*************************************************************************
*************************************************************************
*************************************************************************
*************************************************************************
*************************************************************************
*************************************************************************
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*