In 1992 the hand gun murder rate per 100,000 people

USA 5.28
Britain 0.06

This was the year before the banning of hand guns in the UK</font>[/QUOTE]"Hand-gun" murder rate is skewed to determine the relevance of hand-guns to murders. Straight murder rates before and after the banning of handguns compared to the same murder rates for the same time periods in the US would be the ticket there. Unfortunately, most statisticians are hired for their ability and bending the truth to their employers benefit instead of determining it.

The only homicide rates I could find quickly were from 1997, which are:

US: 6.8/100,000
England & Wales: 1.5/100,000

The higher homicide rate in the US doesn't necessarily mean, at least to my way of thinking, that the availability of hand-guns is to blame though - plenty of other ways to go. You could find a correlation probably between pretty much any 2 sets of figures, but that does not imply that one is the cause of the other. US society does certainly seem to be a more violent one, looking at those figures, but maybe if you removed guns people would take to topping each other with home-made flamethrowers instead - I dunno.

"Lies, damn lies, and statistics."

Sorry, I believe that I missed her post.

Well, he might be as accurate as someone with a gun if he was lucky. The problem is that it takes VERY little to change a succesful shot with a bow into a miss, somewhat less than it takes with a gun I believe, of course I've never wielded a gun myself so I don't really know for sure. A single wrong twitch of a finger or a small gust of wind can throw the arrow off course.

Actually, if he was to be as accurate as any of you across 100 yards(Not sure EXACTLY how much a yard is, so I might just be wrong.), then there would have to be no wind whatsoever.

Sorry, I believe that I missed her post.

Quote:

Originally posted by MILAMBER: As far as accuracy is concerned, Avatar was telling us in another thread how he is more accurate at 100 yards then any of us could dream to be at the same range. I believe him as well. Since the advent of compound bows, bows can be every bit as lethal as a gun.

Well, he might be as accurate as someone with a gun if he was lucky. The problem is that it takes VERY little to change a succesful shot with a bow into a miss, somewhat less than it takes with a gun I believe, of course I've never wielded a gun myself so I don't really know for sure. A single wrong twitch of a finger or a small gust of wind can throw the arrow off course.

Actually, if he was to be as accurate as any of you across 100 yards(Not sure EXACTLY how much a yard is, so I might just be wrong.), then there would have to be no wind whatsoever.</font>[/QUOTE]Sharpshooting 100 yards with a standard pistol in nearly impossible. It's even a challenge with an open sight rifle. The archers who shoot at these ranges need experience AND a finely tuned bow with all the gadgetry. Even the arrows must be exactly the same as each other to the smallest nuance. Windage is a factor in all ranged shooting and the sights on competition grade weapons have quick adjustment knobs for it.

[ 05-02-2002, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Sir Kenyth ]

Sorry, I believe that I missed her post.

Quote:

Originally posted by MILAMBER: As far as accuracy is concerned, Avatar was telling us in another thread how he is more accurate at 100 yards then any of us could dream to be at the same range. I believe him as well. Since the advent of compound bows, bows can be every bit as lethal as a gun.

Well, he might be as accurate as someone with a gun if he was lucky. The problem is that it takes VERY little to change a succesful shot with a bow into a miss, somewhat less than it takes with a gun I believe, of course I've never wielded a gun myself so I don't really know for sure. A single wrong twitch of a finger or a small gust of wind can throw the arrow off course.

Actually, if he was to be as accurate as any of you across 100 yards(Not sure EXACTLY how much a yard is, so I might just be wrong.), then there would have to be no wind whatsoever.</font>[/QUOTE]I completely agree that bows aren't as dangerous as firearms. All I was curious about is why there is no social stigma surrounding archery like there is around firearms. People say they don't like guns becuase they are designed to kill. So are bows. People say they don't like guns because kids could use them to kill. Same with bows. I know it's not a perfect comparison, but I do believe it has some validity. I'm certainly not trying to sell anyone on the fact that bows and guns are the same, because they are obviously not.

Nothing but love Neb. You've handled this issue very well throughout the thread. Very admirable.

Ah! Why there's no social stigma! Easy to explain: People don't hear about the few killings that happen with bows. To most when they hear about bows they probably associate it with being a quaint little hobby or sport. When they hear about guns they think about something used to kill people.

It's actually puzzling me that I do not need a license here in Denmark to own a bow. Seriously, I could actually go kill someone with my bow, or at least injure them pretty badly. So why no license needed? Don't people think that it's possible at all to kill someone?

Epona, as you well know living where you do, Britain can be just as violent a place as the US. I'm not saying that we can't or don't kill each other here but it is just so much easier if you've got guns about.

I'm not saying Britain isn't violent, and yes we have more than our fair share of it in good old Hackney, where the incidence of violent crime (including gun-related crime) is several times the national average. But the criminals that want guns can go get them easily anyway, they know where to go and whom to see. My point is that gun controls have more of an impact on people who would like to shoot as a sport than on people who actually want to go kill someone who still seem to have that option.

I'm undecided on the issue is what it comes down to. I wouldn't want to see a free-for-all, but I don't think gun-controls work when it comes down to it. Gun-related accidents and heat-of-the-moment blowing off of heads after a domestic is lessened, yes, but those people who (at least in Hackney) want to use a gun to commit crime or homicide can still do so.

Also just to clarify my personal stance on one issue that arises from this thread:

Self defense is no offense IMO. If someone was gonna kill me, I would do my utmost to make sure they died first. If they turned tail and ran, I wouldn't go after them though. But in a choice between me and them, I choose me. If I was looking down the barrel of someone's gun and I had a gun, I would try to shoot first. No hesitation.

I once had the unfortunate task of having to fight off an unarmed attacker who broke into my hotel room while I was asleep in bed. My instinct was to grab the nearest heavy object (a ceramic lamp-base) - and I was aiming to do as much damage as I could with it, not just wave it around and hope he chickened out. Fortunately he ran off without harming me, but I was clear in my mind that if it came down to it I would fight to the death, preferably his. If I had a gun, I might have shot him, but only if he hadn't run.

[ 05-02-2002, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: Epona ]

I like your stance on this issue Epona [img]smile.gif[/img] Somewhat like mine. And thank God that you managed to get rid of that guy that broke into your room!