Diederich Andrew Richard said:
According to a 1986 survey of 2,000 imprisoned felons:
57% believed encountering an armed victim is the
worst thing that could happen.
False. The closest thing I could find in Wright and Rossi  to this is
57% agreed that “Most criminals are more worried about meeting an
armed victim than they are about running into the police”, which is
hardly the same thing at all. When asked what THEY (rather than
others) regularly worried about, the results were:
Might get caught 34 Might have to go to prison 30 Family might look down on you 30 Might get shot at by police 20 Might hurt or kill someone 20 Might get shot at by victim 19 Friends might look down on you 14
In 1986 Florida weakened gun control laws. The results:
from ’87-’91, homicides dropped 20%, and rose 14%
I’m not able to check this out, but since every other statistic in
your posting is wrong or misleading, I’ll take this with a large
boulder of salt.
Americans defend themselves with handguns about 645,000
times a year, and 99% of the time no one is killed or
National Crime Survey data show 80,000 gun defences against crime each
year. So the other 565,000 defences must not have been against
A U. of Wisconsin study 17 years ago looked at “every”
form of state handgun control, including a complete gun
ban. The results: the laws had no effect in reducing
Which US state implemented a complete handgun ban before 1976? What
was the methodology of this study?
Morton Grove, Illinois banned handguns to everyone but
the police. In the next year, the crime rate rose 15.7%
while in the rest of Cook County the crime rate rose 3%.
The “crime rate”? Which crime are you talking about? Car theft?
Shop lifting? Fraud? The burglary rate in Morton Grove fell
significantly following their handgun ban. 
Duke University: “Cities located in states with
stringent anti-gun regulations on gun purchases have a
significantly higher robbery rate.”
This is rich. I believe the reference is to , which found that a
10% reduction in the prevalence of gun ownership in a city is
associated with about a 5% reduction in the gun robbery rate and a 4%
reduction in the robbery murder rate but has no discernible effect on
the overall robbery rate. So the correlation that you are using to
argue that gun control causes more robberies instead suggests that
more robberies causes gun control. Talk about taking something out of
6,000 women were trained in firearms courses in Orlando,
Florida. The next year rapes dropped 90%.
And homicides rose 22%. Did the firearm training cause this? Or do
you think it was an unrelated random fluctuation in the homicide rate?
What about the smaller increase in Philadelphia?  analyses Orlando
rapes — despite the impressive size of the decrease, it too could be
caused by chance with a high probability.
A study by the Justice Department showed that attempted
rapes on armed women were unsuccessful 97% of the time.
The reference is to , which showed no such thing.
What it did show that in cases where the victim used a gun OR A
KNIFE in self-defence, the completion rate was 3%. They may not have
been a single gun defence in the survey.
The statistic is clearly marked in the study as unreliable because
gun and knife self defence was so uncommon. The actual numbers were 1
completion out of 32 attempts. A 95% confidence interval for the
completion rate is 1-15%. The completion rate for non-violent
resistance was 10%. So the data does not tell us whether resisting
with a weapon was better or worse than non-violent resistance.
“armed woman” does not equal “resist with gun or knife”. Someone
with a weapon may be unable or choose not to use it.
Less than .025% of handguns in existence are involved in
Or you could put it this way: roughly 1% of handguns will ever be used
I found these statistics quoted in The Denver Post, except the
Justice Department quote, which I got from an issue of Guns & Ammo.
The closest anyone has ever gotten to refuting these statistics is
when they whine about the police in Britain who don’t carry
Using bogus statistics and then insulting those that disagree with you
is not a good way to convince anyone of anything.
Then I point out that if we really want to deter crime, we should
cut off thieves’ hands like they do in some Arab countries.
So gun control is the same as cutting off hands?? Oh I get it. Gun
control is cutting off arms. Ha ha.
Essentially, there is no rational argument to support gun
Certainly there is. “Gun control reduces homicides.” There is
evidence for and against this proposition. What is irrational about
 The Armed Criminal in America (1986)
 Criminology 29:4 541-559 (1991)
 Policy Studies Review Annual vol 3 (1979)