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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!uwvax!crystal!pal From: pal@crystal.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Killing Styles Message-ID: <389@crystal.UUCP> Date: Thu, 3-Jan-85 13:52:25 EST Article-I.D.: crystal.389 Posted: Thu Jan 3 13:52:25 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 5-Jan-85 02:01:20 EST References: <985@phs.UUCP> Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept Lines: 57 > [From Paul Dolber] > Re: murder by different weapons in different countries: > [...] > > An interesting article about gun control is one by D.B. Kates, Jr. > (1981. Gun control: Can it work? National Review 33 (9): 540-542.) > Among other points touched upon by this article is the cultural > factor: > > ".... Those who blame > greater handgun availability for our greater rates of > handgun homicide ignore the fact that rates of murder with > knives or without any weapon (i.e., with hands and feet) > are also far lower in England. The study's author has asked > rhetorically whether it is claimed that knives are less > available in England than in the U.S. or that the English have > fewer hands and feet than Americans..." This is as blatant a distortion of fact as I have seen, and I've seen a few. Of course the knife murder rate is lower in Britain. *All* murder rates are lower in Britain. But the firearm death rate is lower *EVEN TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE OVERALL LOWER MURDER RATE*. Whereas 65% of US homicides are committed with guns, only about 10% of those in Britain are. *Effective* restriction of handgun availability *will* reduce the gun death rate. The obvious counter is to ask whether the *overall* homicide rate will change, or whether those who would have been killed with guns will now be killed with knives (or fists, or..). The analyses I have seen (see my posting <386@crystal.UUCP> for details, show that gun attacks are 4-6 times as likely to be fatal as are knife attacks, and about 10 times as lethal as fist attacks. > > "European comparisons would be incomplete without mention of > Switzerland, where violence rates are very low though every > man of military age is required to own a handgun or fully > automatic rifle. Israeli violence is similarly low, though Again, not the whole truth. As mentioned previously on the net, the ammunition for the Swiss weapons has to be stored in sealed boxes, which are subject to inspection. To turn the question around, does anybody have figures (Katz seems to have an aversion to them, and not without reason) for the percentage of gun homicides in Switzerland? Perhaps Switzerland *does* have higher proportion of gun deaths than other European countries. If guns were not available, more of the victims would have survived, and the overall homicide rate would be lower still. I will concede that cultural differences make valid comparisons difficult. Comparisons like those made by Katz are highly simplified and just plain misleading. The books I have read (references available on request, or see some of my earlier postings) seem to converge to the statement that guns "Probably have no effect on overall crime rates, but do increase the severity of crimes committed, and change their distribution" I cannot speak for NRA members, but I would rather have my hubcaps stolen than be shot. Anil Pal U. of Wisconsin-Madison