This is a perfect example of how to lie with statistics. The author is trying to use these numbers to prove that handguns are "murder weapons". But that conclusion cannot be drawn from these statistics because these numbers only mention handgun related deaths and do not include non-fatal handgun incidents. What about the vast majority of incidents where handguns are used in self defence without shots even being fired?
I personaly have had to resort to using a handgun in self defense on three seperate occasions, in each of which I was threatened with imminent physical harm. Merely displaying the gun was sufficient on two of those unfortunate occasions, and I only had to draw it once. Not once did I pull the trigger. I called the police and reported each incident, and since they interviewed me each time, I can only assume these incidents are recorded somewhere. Where are the authors statistics that include my self defense experiences?
John Lott (Univ. of Chicago) published a book "More Guns, Less Crime" where he does a careful analysis, which led to the astonishing conclusion that is reflected in the title of his book.
He wasn't Pro-Gun (at first), and was, in the beginning, slightly pro-gun control. But the statistics that he carefully researched shows that guns essentially prevent perhaps 2 million crimes each year.
And over time, more evidence gets compiled to bolster his research.
And other countries have actions that further prove his assertion - the latest is in Great Britian. With total gun control, and homeowners not allowed to protect themselves, breakins and other crimes are significantly higher than in the U.S. Since criminals know that the government has de-fanged and de-clawed the population, the criminals can break and enter without much fear of being met by that great equalizer - Mr. Smith and Wesson (or his equivalent.)
But the author of this article chooses to ignore facts which run contrary to his beliefs ...
Mike
worse
In 2003 the FBI recorded 7,700 handgun murders nationwide, but only 163 are considered "justifiable homicide" or self-defense."
That number is 163 too high (murder is unlawful killing and can never be "justifiable homicide").
If the police make an intial self-defense finding, there's no crime and FBI never hears about it.
What this represents are those cases where police/coroner made a inital judgement of murder (where the FBI gets its murder figures) but either the Grand Jury did not returnt an indictement, or the trial jury found not guilty on the person involved.
Yeah, I start teaching my sociology course in January. The left leaning textbook I have to use makes several examples in exactly the same manner. The stats do not differentiate between homicides that are justifiable or excusable: Like Cop kills bad guy or private citizen kills bad guy. They also do not make distinctions about bad guys killing other bad guys. Subtle and not so subtle bias. More of the agenda I have to fight. ~sigh~