She doesn't come at this topic with very clean hands 
So, am I to understand that unless the information source is from an anti-gun proponent, you will not accept information as having any validity?
Have you considered that this may say more about your own bias than theirs?
Perhaps Gary Kleck will be a more credible provider of information?
"Gary Kleck is a Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University (see curriculum vita and this overview). His research centers on violence and crime control with special focus on gun control and crime deterrence. Dr. Kleck is the author of Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Aldine de Gruyter, 1991), and Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (Aldine de Gruyter, 1997). He is also a contributor to the major sociology journals, and in 1993 Dr. Kleck was the winner of the Michael J. Hindelang Award of the American Society of Criminology, for the book which made "the most outstanding contribution to criminology" in the preceding three years (for Point Blank).
Gary Kleck's voluntary disclosure statement that appears in Targeting Guns:
The author is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, Independent Action, Democrats 2000, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations He is a lifelong registered Democrat, as well as a contributor to liberal Democratic candidates. He is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of, or contributor to, the National Rifle Association, Handgun Control, Inc. nor any other advocacy organization, nor has he received funding for research from any such organization. "
Above quoted from:
http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.htmlYou can also google his name and find quite a bit of data about him and his work relating to gun control. But, before you do that, I have to say this:
Much has been made about crime statistics and gun related deaths posted to this forum. The intent was clear that such posting was to bolster the position that guns should be banned from ordinary citizens, ostensibly to reduce the number of deaths per capita. If one absorbs such data in a vacuum, death statistics can be used in a similar way to ban autos, motorcycles, swimming pools, and even water in general.
From :
http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/glance/tables/frmdth.htmWe can see that firearm-related deaths have been in an annual and steady decline since 1993. (Despite there being 200,000,000 guns in the US and more that 3 million added each year.) The anti-gun camp will assert that suicides should be included in gun violence data even though there is ample evidence to suggest alternate means would have been substituted. (Roughly half of these were suicides, 57% in 2001.) For the moment, I'll avoid that debate, and use the entire
29,573 firearm related deaths in 2001. But, I will note that these Firearms Statistics also include Gang Warfare, self-defense shootings, and criminals Killed by Police.
http://www.poseidon-tech.com/us/statistics.html * In 2000, there were
3,482 unintentional drownings in the United States, an average of nine people per day.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
* It is estimated that for each drowning death, there are 1 to 4 nonfatal submersions serious enough to result in hospitalization. Children who still require cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) at the time they arrive at the emergency department have a poor prognosis, with at least half of survivors suffering significant neurologic impairment.
American Academy of Pediatrics
(I could make a joke here about these victims becoming future anti-gunners or changing residence to Australia. But, that would be a cheap shot, and offend Australians who have far more sense than a certain raving loud mouth pitiable aussie who has sustained far too many head injuries in practice combat.)
Anyway, what do drownings have to do with gun bans? I mention this because, if all you ever learned about water was that people drowned in it, you might just assume water was an evil thing that the ordinary populace should be separated from having in their possession. Or, at least, the quantities should be carefully controlled by some benevolent and "trusted" distribution authority.
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatal Crashes -
37,852.
What does this higher number of deaths due to motor vehicles than firearms have to do with gun bans?
If all you ever learned about motor vehicles was that people died with their association, you might conclude that these were much more dangerous to human life than firearms. If motor vehicle accidents/ fatalities were reported by the media with the same zeal as firearm related incidents (more on this later), would those not employing the use of motor vehicles not develop a fear and loathing of motor vehicles? Might they not call for a ban on their availability or severe restrictions for their use by unqualified people? It’s a privilege, not a right, after all.
But, you say, water and motor vehicles have far more benefits than firearms do. We have a "need" for those other things. We weigh the benefits of the item in question against the dangers and perceive a greater good for its use.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html"There are approximately
two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens."
Like water and motor vehicles, access to guns provides far more benefit than detriment to society. Their use saves many more lives than they take. And in far more cases, the lives they save are far better left in society’s population than the ones lost. Remember the self-defense shootings, and Criminals Killed by Police? Tragically some, but not all, that are lost saddens and diminishes society when perpetrated by criminals.
Someone chasing off an intruder from their home with a firearm, discharged or not, is unlikely to make the evening news, newspapers, or any governmental statistics gathering mechanism, unless the incident is reported, or the individual has an "importance" above that of the average taxpayer.
A home invasion leaving the entire family dead, you’ll probably hear about. That’s really meaty news. And, if the criminals used a gun, it "pops" much better for improved ratings. The police chief and elected officials will make sound bites and other messages heard at the poor family’s expense and behind their own gaggle of body guards and personal militia.
News? Well, who cares if Joe Homeowner chased a thug out his bedroom window with a wave of his handgun and a shout of "get out or I’ll shoot"? Well, besides me, anyway. That kind of "feel good" news is just not popular. The anti-gunners will still say "oh my god he’s got a gun!" "Glad it’s not in MY neighborhood!" The police will break down Joe Homeowner’s door, handcuff and prostrate the entire family, just to find out if the gun is registered and terrorize any children present, because they are the "good guys" and it’s a low risk "drill". But, I digress…
Guns don’t actually have to be discharged to be of benefit for deterring crime. Police and government don’t keep such statistics.
In fact, guns in the hands of the intended victim are in the ideal placement to stop crime and, if used effectively, can even prevent criminals from further criminal acts to the betterment of society, including anti-gunners.
It is my belief that guns, water, motor vehicles, and a very large number of other very powerful tools and other items, benefit not only the individual, but society as well. It is their entire contribution that must be evaluated, not just one aspect. And, certainly not only the aspects that support a pre-decided viewpoint.
Yes, there will be accidents, as well as malicious actions taken with many of these tools. This is part of the human condition, and is not likely to change with tool availability.
Finally, since certain individuals do not have the ability to read this much prose that goes against their core beliefs…
It is my sincere wish that when the violent, belligerent, bully, Terry of Australia advances toward me with a 2x4 and fists clenched, grimacing, gritting teeth, and hate in his eyes, he will have a change of plan when confronted with my 1911. If his subsequent steps are in the opposite direction, he won’t have to see the muzzle. Otherwise, little tiny pipsqueak me will have to end his elitist reign of violence and propaganda intent on ensuring his air of superiority.
How can a man so great in stature be so small of mind?
Methinks the things he’s stepped in that were so interesting, was his very own excrement, from the orifice of his choice. It probably kept him fascinated for hours, maybe even days, and seems to be his most valuable asset.
Cheers mate!
P.S.S.T. This last final bit will be our little secret, okay? Terry need never know. (snicker)
