It's called The Culture Of Fear by Barry Glassner. It is a real testament to not judging a book by it's cover. I guessed that it would have statistical information about why Americans are afraid of things that really arent that dangerous. For the most part, I was right. It explains that kids are rarely abducted by home-invading strangers, road-rage is almost entirely a media creation, and other topics like that. What I found rather irritating was the author's emotional and fearful stance on guns. He states, explicitly, that guns kill people. Aside from his personification of an inanimate object, I was astounded by this assertion. His book explains that despite the constant media attention to airline safety (it is worth noting that this book was published in 1999, although, statistically, not much has changed), you are still FAR more likely to be killed in a car wreck than a plane crash. So guns kill people... even though cars (no, we couldn't accuse the driver, it has to be the car) kill many thousands more. Amazing that this is a book dedicated to debunking American's fears.
Evidently "the unregulated posession of guns, more than any other factor... accounts for the disparity in fatality rates from violent crime in the United States compared to most of the world." Which parts of the world are we talking about here? Since this book is so concerned with stating real facts and numbers, let's have some real numbers about how many people are killed in specific nations compared to the U.S. Obviously it's a book, so answers are less than forthcoming.
I found it downright amusing that he repeatedly cites the Dunblane shootings as evidence. As I stated before, this book was written in 1999, so he did not have access to the most recent crime statistics from the "gun-free" British Isles. Evidently the British government's restriction of callibers (according to him, I know virtually nothing other than the total ban of handguns) to .22 only makes them MUCH safer than us. I won't go into the endless debate about caliber effectiveness, but it is more likely that a random hit on a human body from a 9mm XST will be fatal than would a hit from a .22. This raises a question: So the hell what? Criminals don't obey the law anyway, so what's the difference between a 9mm and a .22 to them? Furthermore, what is the difference to a marksman with the skill to place a shot accurately? I won't speculate as the the level of skill of the man who carried out the murders in Dunblane, but there is evidence (in the form of his membership in gun clubs) that he did at least some practice.
The worst part of the section on crime and violence is the statement that fewer guns would reduce crime. He actually states this in a cause-and-effect relationship. I guess I don't have to ask what would have happened if an armed and adequately trained policeman, security guard, or even TEACHER (g-d forbid) had been watching the kids on the playground with a pistol tucked away just in case.
As you may have guessed, I'm compiling my thoughts on the subject so that I can write a "journal entry" on this section of the book. Any corrections or additions to my statements are most welcome, and any other info anybody has laying around is welcome as well.
Evidently "the unregulated posession of guns, more than any other factor... accounts for the disparity in fatality rates from violent crime in the United States compared to most of the world." Which parts of the world are we talking about here? Since this book is so concerned with stating real facts and numbers, let's have some real numbers about how many people are killed in specific nations compared to the U.S. Obviously it's a book, so answers are less than forthcoming.
I found it downright amusing that he repeatedly cites the Dunblane shootings as evidence. As I stated before, this book was written in 1999, so he did not have access to the most recent crime statistics from the "gun-free" British Isles. Evidently the British government's restriction of callibers (according to him, I know virtually nothing other than the total ban of handguns) to .22 only makes them MUCH safer than us. I won't go into the endless debate about caliber effectiveness, but it is more likely that a random hit on a human body from a 9mm XST will be fatal than would a hit from a .22. This raises a question: So the hell what? Criminals don't obey the law anyway, so what's the difference between a 9mm and a .22 to them? Furthermore, what is the difference to a marksman with the skill to place a shot accurately? I won't speculate as the the level of skill of the man who carried out the murders in Dunblane, but there is evidence (in the form of his membership in gun clubs) that he did at least some practice.
The worst part of the section on crime and violence is the statement that fewer guns would reduce crime. He actually states this in a cause-and-effect relationship. I guess I don't have to ask what would have happened if an armed and adequately trained policeman, security guard, or even TEACHER (g-d forbid) had been watching the kids on the playground with a pistol tucked away just in case.
As you may have guessed, I'm compiling my thoughts on the subject so that I can write a "journal entry" on this section of the book. Any corrections or additions to my statements are most welcome, and any other info anybody has laying around is welcome as well.