reply to post by rockintitz
I appreciate what you are trying to point out but it would be a lot better if you put it in the full context. 11,078 deaths in one year should be
multiplied by the average lifespan of 78 years in the USA en.wikipedia.org...
which is a bit over 850
thousand. 315,596,000 is the current population of USA en.wikipedia.org...
So your chance of dying by being shot in a
homicide is 0.27% during your life time. Thankfully that number is still low but it isn't showing the full picture.
The question really is how likely during a person's lifetime in the USA will they personally be a victim of a crime where a gun was used? This
includes shootings of all sorts, but also where a gun is used but not fired. The rate, per factcheck.org...
55,554 Non fatal gun injuries a year, + 138,336 Gun Aggravated assaults, +122,300 Gun Robberies each year. That comes out to 327,268 gun related
crimes in the US per year. Multiplied by the lifespan and divided by the population as above that come out to a bit over 8%. Of course all of that
is very simple math and to do the job right it would need statistical sampling, rate declines of crime over time, population growth rates, demographic
shifts etc. But for me 8% is a good enough number.
The flipside is how many crimes are stopped by people having a gun for defense? www.ncjrs.gov...
does a lot of mental
gymnastics to come up with 108,000 times a year as a low, reasonable estimate. Personally that still seems really high to me but the point is that at
lot of the time having a gun allows the person to stop a crime from occurring to them or to the people they are protecting. So on that count owning
a gun is a good thing.
So what can be done to stop guns from being used in crimes? I think this next chart gives us a really good clue
:Firearmsources.svg shows where federal inmates get there guns. 1/3rd of the time its from family or friends, and 25%
of the time they buy the gun. The rest of the time is by some illegal activity. That means that only 25% of the guns can be restricted through
federal purchase controls like the ones we have in California. 75% of the time the felon's will get their guns from some other source. I actually
think the California screening/waiting period is a positive thing, and I would have no qualms about it being implemented nationally, but we would be
just fooling ourselves to think that it would affect more then 25% of the gun crimes. The key is the 35% of the time it comes from friends or family.
Its unlikely that friends/family will stop letting felon's borrow there guns without an incentive. If we want to stop friends and family from
allowing felons to take/use/borrow their guns, then friends and families are going to have to share in the punishment for the crimes. Lets say 10%.
For instance if you don't keep your gun locked up, and your 18 year old takes the gun and uses it to rob a bank, then you get to face 10% of their
prison term. So if they get 20 years, you get 2 years as an accomplice. If it was used to murder someone, you get 10% of 78 years, or a 7.8 year
sentence. That seems to me to be about the only way to stop friends and family from being such a big source for weapons to felons. Doing those two
things, might, just might, do something to reduce crime.