On Nov 29, 12:19=A0pm, Siskuwihane <Siskuwiha...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> http://www.independent.com/news/2007/may/24/defensive-logic/
>
> Defensive Logic
> By Henry Delgado
>
> Thursday, May 24, 2007
>
> While I have no doubt that Mike Vandeman, PhD, is a well-educated and
> reasonable man, I submit that the information he has gleaned from his
> associates regarding firearms is woefully inadequate [ "Close
> Reading," May 10]. Dr. Vandeman starts out by labeling it
> =93preposterous=94 to say that guns are used defensively 2.5 million
time=
s
> a year. I respectfully refer Dr. Vandeman to a 1993 national survey
> re****t by Gary Kleck, Florida State University criminology professor.
> Using a survey sample of 4,977 respondents (the usual survey sample is
> in the 600 to 1,600 range), Professor Kleck determined that guns are
> used an average of 2.5 million times a year to prevent or defend
> against a crime. In 1994, Bill Clinton=92s Department of Justice
> sponsored a survey titled "Guns in America: National Survey on Private
> Owner****p and Use of Firearms." They used a smaller sample size than
> Kleck, and estimated 1.5 million defensive uses of firearms annually.
>
> It is unfortunate Dr. Vandeman doesn=92t know any gun owners. Contrary
> to his assertion that a =93tiny minority of the population own guns,=94
> here are the facts for his perusal: There are approximately
> 300,000,000 people in the U.S. There are approximately 65,000,000 gun
> owners in the U.S. That=92s about 22 percent of the population. There
> are 200 million firearms (65 million-70 million handguns). Firearms
> are used for protection by 11 percent of firearms owners (13 percent
> of handgun owners). Criminal yearly misuse of firearms is less than
> 0.2 percent (and less than 0.4 percent for handguns).
>
> I=92m confident that Dr. Vandeman will be enlightened by these figures.
> I have personally been a participant in defusing a possible crime
> because we were armed=97but that=92s another story.=97Henry Delgado
http://www.independent.com/news/2007/may/24/defensive-logic/
And what I'd like to know is why Vandeman has to attach his title of
doctor to his letter?
It's one thing if a professor of linguistics mentions that they are a
doctor when debating language, but in this case, I don't see where his
being a PhD matters since it doesn't apply to this argument, and he
didn't even specify his field of study in his original letter.
billclausen
May 25, 2007 at 7:52 p.m.
|
