OK folks, lets try to break one really bad habit: "gun deaths and injuries" is not equivalent to "crime". While many gun deaths and injuries are a result of crime or criminal acts, not all crimes are gun deaths and injuries. Crime rates, even violent crime rates, cannot be substituted in arguments for gun death or injury rates. GVP folks do NOT concentrate their efforts on crime, so why use that term in our arguments. Exit soapbox!Another gun responsibility advocate responded:
I get that from the gun guys on my blog all the time. They try to send me links to articles about crime in general to prove some point. They don't get that we are talking about deaths and injuries. Or maybe they do. They just don't want to talk about that part of it.Because if you add the "non-criminal" gun injuries and death--then the number skyrockets. It also puts paid to the things being "safe". But gun guys can't be serious saying that guns aren't dangerous/
Of course, some of the gun guys get the difference, but they don't have credible stats to use in their favour unless they stay with the broader "crime" category. On the other hand, people who want gun control don't give a damn if owning guns reduces bicycle theft or public graffiti etc. - it's the dead and injured that rile them!
Anyway, it's all semantics with the gun guys. Technically guns are not dangerous - if you put a gun in a metal cage it will sit there till it rusts away and never hurt anyone, so guns are not dangerous! Yes. that's a facile argument, because that is not how guns are used, but the gundamentalists will stand by that semantic argument.
The problem is that no matter how you want to try and change the topic: a firearm is a weapon with its purpose being to kill or cause serious bodily injury when used correctly. If they were not lethal 9or at least harmful) there wouldn't be the power associated with the things.
