Reply #12: Did you read the article?

[gorfle]

If the author is going to write such drivel, he should include some examples of "gun prohibitionists" that have actually offered such an argument. As it stands, he appears to have created a straw man to tear down with this bit of piffle.

The author provided several quotes, with citations, and I quoted them.

In addition, I hope all readers note the very specific term of "murderers" being used by the author. This apparently means that he ONLY used those people in his study that have been convicted of murder by the judicial system. What degree of murder is only anyone's guess. What about manslaughter? 2nd degree?

His discussion of murder is in direct response to the anti-firearm people he quoted and was addressing, who also addressed or implied murder specifically.

Then there is this gem of nonsense:
"The lie on which gun prohibitionists centrally rely asserts that most murders are committed by ordinary citizens because they happened to have a firearm in a moment of anger."

Really? Which gun prohibitionists? What are their names and what did they say?

Clearly you did not read the article. Both he (and I) cited several specific examples. The author even provides citations:

3. Daniel W. Webster et al., Reducing Firearms Injuries, ISSUES SCI. & TECH., Spring 1991, at 73, 73.
4. Bruce R. Conklin & Richard H. Seiden, Gun Deaths: Biting the Bullet on Effective Control, PUB. AFF. REP., Oct. 1981, at 1, 4.
5. Deane Calhoun, From Controversy to Prevention: Building Effective Firearm Policies, INJ. PREVENTION NETWORK NEWSL., Winter 1989, at 15; see also GEORGE PICKETT & JOHN J. HANLON, PUBLIC HEALTH: ADMINISTRATION AND PRACTICE 496 (9th ed. 1990); J.A. Barondess, Correspondence, 272 JAMA 1409 (1994); Frederick P. Rivara & F. Bruder Stapleton, Handguns and Children: A Dangerous Mix, 3 J. DEVELOPMENTAL & BEHAV. PEDIATRICS 35, 37 (1982). "

In addition, would it not still be a correct statement to offer "ALL gun deaths are committed by people that happened to have a firearm in the moment that someone was killed with a firearm?" See how easy that is to write! I didn't even have to conduct a study for that bit of wisdom which is no different than the author's silly and meaningless straw man argument.

Sure you could write that. But you cannot imply that just because all firearm deaths are committed by someone with a firearm that all firearm owners are equally likely to commit such crimes, and THAT is the implication of the anti-firearm crowd being addressed in the article. The fact is, the biggest determinator of who is going to commit a firearm murder is not that they possess a firearm but rather that they have an extensive prior criminal history.

I will also add that the author neglects to touch on all the other aspects of gun violence like suicide and serious injury caused by firearms. Those stats dwarf the number of people actually murdered with a gun.

I would be very surprised if other criminal uses of firearms did not follow a similar pattern. Suicides and accidents are a whole other kettle of fish and not relevant to the anti-firearm argument under discussion that "all firearm owners are law-abiding until they are not". The discussion is about the criminal use of firearms.

Lastly, I have not looked, but I doubt even the author's central premise. I assume that the incidents of family members killing each other in fits of anger far outnumbers the incidents of gun deaths during the commission of a crime.

The author addresses this specifically. Your argument assumes that people with extensive criminal backgrounds do not also have families and fits of anger. We all have those - criminal and non-criminal alike. Yet it is still true that over 90% of people who commit murder with a firearm have extensive criminal records. It is the criminals who are far more likely to kill their family members in fits of anger.