From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: ucsu.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: na
Lines: 31

In article <C4tM1H.ECF@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>: You are betraying your lack of understanding about RATE versus TOTAL
>: NUMBER. Rates are expressed, often, as #/100,000 population.
>: Therefore, if a place had 10 deaths and a population of 100,000, the
>: rate would be 10/100,000.  A place that had 50 deaths and a population
>: of 1,000,000 would hav a rate of 5/100,000.  The former has a higher
>: rate, the latter a higher total.  You are less likely to die in the
>: latter.  Simple enuff?

>For chrissakes, take out your calculator and work out the numbers.
>Here... I've preformatted them for you to make it easier:

>			handgun homicides/population
>			----------------------------
>	Switzerland :	24 /  6,350,000
>	         UK :    8 / 55,670,000

>... and then tell me again how Switzerland is safer with a more
>liberal handgun law than the UK is without...by RATE or TOTAL NUMBER.
>Your choice.

Because there are about 40 homicides total (i.e. using guns, knives,
tire-irons, baseball bats, bare hands, etc...) in Switzerland
each year and 850 homicides, total, in England. That's three
times worse per capita in England than in Switzerland. Since
dead is dead, it really doesn't matter that 60% of the Switz
murders involved a gun or that only 0.9% of the English murderers
do. 

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder    
