Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site crystal.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!uwvax!crystal!pal From: pal@crystal.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Guns DO kill -- a different analysis Message-ID: <385@crystal.UUCP> Date: Fri, 28-Dec-84 17:03:49 EST Article-I.D.: crystal.385 Posted: Fri Dec 28 17:03:49 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 30-Dec-84 00:11:39 EST Distribution: net Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept Lines: 78 Anybody who reads this newsgroup must have heard that "Guns don't kill, people do." I present here what I believe to be a strong argument that guns, at the very least, facil- itate killing. The ideas presented here are not my own, the idea and the figures are taken from "The honest politician's giude to crime control" by Norval Morris and Gordon Hawkins, published by The University of Chicago Press, 1970 (the fig- ures are hence somewhat dated; if someone has more recent statistics, please post them). The article is a little long but I have not seen this particular analysis on the net before. The assumption behind the "guns don't kill" argument is that equally dangerous alternative weapons are readily available and would be used by potential criminals to the same effect as firearms. This assumption is not borne out by the available evidence, as seems reasonable in light of the greater range, potency and functionality of firearms in conflict situations. The use of a gun does not require phy- sical contact with the victim and requires considerably less strength, agility and skill than does the use of, say, a knife. As an alternative assumption, consider the hypothesis that the difference between homicide and aggravated assault is more a matter of outcome than of intent. To quote from my reference (pp. 57-8): "The line between willful homicide and aggravated assault is uncertain; other than in terms of the outcome of violence. The speed of the ambulance, the competence of the surgeon, and the fortuitous point of impact of the missile or weapon do more to distinguish between these crimes than does any analysis of states of mind of the assailants." Further, on page 66: "...the available evidence shows that there is great homogeneity in the pattern of most homicide and ag- gravated assault cases in respect of such variables as time of occurence, location, situational context, ofender-victim relationship, and prior arrest records. THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO LIES IN THE FACT THAT A FIREARM IS MORE COMMON IN HOMI- CIDES WHILE A KNIFE IS MORE COMMON IN ASSAULTS; this fact, in the absence of evidence that firearm at- tacks are generally more seriously intended than knife or other types of attacks, may be attributed to the greater lethal potential of the gun. More- over ... a recent investigation of physical patterns of knife and gun wounding in Chicago suggests that roughly the same proportion of each is seriously in- tended, and so THE DIFFERENTIAL FATALITY RATES CAN- NOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO VARIANCE OF INTENT." [Emphases mine] The authors go on to give more arguments in support of the claim that the difference between homicide and assault is not generally attributable to motive or the nature of the aggressors. If you can get hold of the book, you may want to read it. Given this assumption, it is reasonable to compare the outcomes of attacks with different weapons. The fatality rates for the three most common modes of attack are: Mode of attack Fatality Rate (%) Gun 13 Knife 3 Fists, hands, feet 1.7 To me, at least, the argument appears compelling. Of course, other arguments remain, primarily regarding the feasibility of gun control, but I think the myth that "Guns don't kill" can be laid to rest.