On Nov 29, 12:19*pm, Siskuwihane wrote:
http://www.independent.com/news/2007...fensive-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
“preposterous” to say that guns are used defensively 2.5 million times
a year. I respectfully refer Dr. Vandeman to a 1993 national survey
report 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’s Department of Justice
sponsored a survey titled "Guns in America: National Survey on Private
Ownership 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’t know any gun owners. Contrary
to his assertion that a “tiny minority of the population own guns,”
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’s 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’m 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—but that’s another story.—Henry Delgado

http://www.independent.com/news/2007...fensive-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.