Do you own a firearm?

[Sharon_]

I asked for statistics that can be meaningfully compared. Good statistics can be highly informative, but very often I find that people pull together stats from different kinds of studies in order to make what they think is a balanced case but the two sets of stats are simply incompatible.

There is a similar thread going on at the General Board, "Women and Handguns" from which I pulled this snippet C&P'd from a thread there...www.guninfo.org, I think (granted, likely a biased source, but facts are facts)...it's is a direct answer to your query of Writer Dom re: Kennesaw:

"Fact: In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% the following year."

 

[midwestyankee]

There is a similar thread going on at the General Board, "Women and Handguns" from which I pulled this snippet C&P'd from a thread there...www.guninfo.org, I think (granted, likely a biased source, but facts are facts)...it's is a direct answer to your query of Writer Dom re: Kennesaw:

"Fact: In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% the following year."

That's impressive. Has the drop held in the intervening years? Of course, the cynic in me also would want to know if the burglary rate was being measured the same way in the reported years. One real problem with crime statistics comes from the underlying assumption that all crimes are reported. Since they aren't, a variation in the rate of reporting from one year to the next could have an impact on the outcome that was not due to the supposed cause.

 

[Sharon_]

That's impressive. Has the drop held in the intervening years?

<shrug>
I would have no way of knowing, barring doing your leg work and looking it up for you

Like I said, I came across that snippet in a related thread over on the General Board, and remembering your question on this forum about that specific town, c&p'd it.

Of course, the cynic in me also would want to know if the burglary rate was being measured the same way in the reported years. One real problem with crime statistics comes from the underlying assumption that all crimes are reported. Since they aren't, a variation in the rate of reporting from one year to the next could have an impact on the outcome that was not due to the supposed cause.

An 89% drop in reporting doesn't sound plausible to /me/, but what do I know, eh?
[other than stats can and are often twisted to support any and all positions]

 

[SirQittus]

On guns for personal protection.

From experience I know that guns are very bad for protection. In a street fight guns are useless, almost totally ineffective, the only real advantage being psychological. A knife or a taser, in my opinion are ideal for urban protection.

Guns are an offensive weapon, in an urban setting the only thing they are good for are making threats, and gun fights. Meaning someone is shooting at you and you shoot back.

From what I gather, the vast majority of the time, psychological advantage (making threats) is all you need. The vast majority of (successful) defensive uses of a gun don't involve pulling a trigger.

 

[DVS]

I don't think the numbers are that far off. And if you count the people who get shot and don't die it is double car deaths. Of course many people get hurt in cars as well.

The below is just one quote and to give the opposition some cred, I chose this one. And he talks about all accidents, not just drunk driving accidents. And I was suprised to hear that statistics show a drunk accident as anything involving an intoxicated individual. Not all drunk accidents are caused by the drunk. Some only kill a drunk in the other car, and some sober drivers kill drunks walking across the street at the wrong time.

But, I also like how this lawyer explains things from a different point of view than we usually think about this. Maybe he's talked to so many victims and so many drunks that his perspective has been enhanced.

But the statistics I wanted to show I couldn't find many specifics...mainly drunk driving versus guns, although all accidents are a statistic I'd like to see given more press. Too much cell phone use during rush hour, putting on make up during rush hour, driving too fast in traffic, driving too slow in traffic, not using turn signals, racing on public roads, not using basic traffic rules and curteous behavior, and the ever growing "my time is more important than your time" attitude.

I've added the link for his whole article. He makes sense. He really isn't talking about guns and autos. He does mention some statistics, though, and because he makes sense in other ways, I liked his link.

The complete article and below, his stated statistics within the article.

----

Here are some sobering statistics notice there’s no legitimate references for these “stats”:

In the past decade, four times as many Americans died in drunk driving crashes as were killed in the entire Vietnam war. Well a lot less people went to Vietnam and served at the front where the fighting occurred. Plus our men were fighting back, which resulted in less casualties for Americans!

Traffic crashes are the greatest single cause of death for every age from six through twenty-eight. Almost half of those crashes are alcohol-related. Aha, less than half! There are other reasons for those deaths. I would presume that all of the gun-related deaths in the same age group were equally avoidable.