Arse, sorry, don't want to be seen to hog (divvn't worry anyhow, I really must get on with some work this week), but I missed a few obvious points in my other answer...: First lets look at some FBI data; With the broad definition of "acquaintances" used in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, most victims are indeed classified as knowing their killer.
OK, BritGov (tm) Data:
Domestic (Close relations): 835,000
Known (at least by sight): 1,462,000
Unkown: 681,000
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/publf.htm
(British Crime Survey 1998- requires Adobe Acrobat).
The middle grouping is Very broad, covering friends, drinking buddies, to locally known people.
:But what's not made clear is that acquaintance murder primarily includes drug buyers killing pushers, cabdrivers killed by first-time customers, gang members killing other gang members, prostitutes killed by their clients, and so on.
Don't think half of those count as aquaintances- certainly not the cabbies one. Also, most of those illustrate situations in which people were killed, because they would not normally draw a gun in those social situations, hence most of those figures would still occur with guns owned for 'self-defence'.
: Only one U.S. city, Chicago, reports a precise breakdown on the nature of acquaintance killings, and the statistic gives a very different impression: between 1990 and 1995, just 17% of murder victims were either family members, friends, neighbors or roommates of their killers.
Well, its about 25%, but Murder only makes up 0.2% of recorded crime.
: and secondly even when in some cases the chances of getting to your gun are low then that is simply *not* an argument to disarm people.
1:Its an argument against it being an effective method of self defence.
2:Its an argument for gun ownership being largely illusory in self defence terms.
: and thirdly it is *not* whether you can or cant get to your gun on the occasion it happens - its the criminals perception of his chance of getting shot that matters
And in most of those listed above, teh murder was either opportune, or a social situation where no Gun was evident, and thus would be no help.
I restate my point- Guns are useless for self-defence, and pointless to discuss in terms of making people safer- what matters is broader social communal structures, the BCS and other britGov Data make it clear, the poor are more likely to be the victims of crime, both in terms of property and violence (property making up the vast majority of criminal cases). Often committed by the equally poor. Forget guns, they are pointless and irrelevent to the pooint of tedium- social solutions for social problems.
None.
