FBI's 2002 crime report out--dropping again

[jfields 0]

Quote

Here's some interesting statistics for ya:

There were 34,000 skydivers with a membership to the USPA in 2001. (USPA)

There were 74,000,000 gun owners in America, by the lowest 2000 estimate. (Prof. John Lott)

In 2001, there were 35 skydiving fatalities. (USPA)

In 2000, there were 778 accidental deaths by firearms. (the most recent CDC study)

In 2001, the fatality rate to number of USPA members was 102.9:100,000

In 2000, the accidental fatality rate to number of estimated gun owners was .9:100,000

That is a load of crap.

How many of those skydiving-related fatalties were whuffos that inadvertently got killed by skydivers in the process of burning in? None.

I could give a shit about how many gun owners inadvertently kill themselves through stupidity. Compare the innocent victims:participants ratio for skydiving fatalities to accidental gun fatalities.

0:35
to
?:778

I'd bet that question mark is well over 600 non-owners killed. And I can guarantee it is non-zero.

[mnischalke 0]

Oh, and according to a 1997 study by the National Safety Council:

There were 13,252 homocides by firearms.

There were 15,447 deaths from falling.

Interestingly, based on the 1990 Harvard Medical Practice Studys, Doctor's negligence killed more than 90,000 people in 1997.


Also according to the National Safety Council, the cause and number of accidental deaths of children (0-14) were:
Motor-vehicle: 2,900
Drowning: 965
Fires, burns: 676
Mechanical suffocation: 474
Ingestion of food, object: 185
Firearms: 142

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Oh, and according to a 1997 study by the National Safety Council:

There were 13,252 homocides by firearms.

There were 15,447 deaths from falling.

Interestingly, based on the 1990 Harvard Medical Practice Studys, Doctor's negligence killed more than 90,000 people in 1997.

So people falling and medical malpractice justify homicide by firearm? A rather peculiar philosophy.

Maybe if I die from a heart attack that will justify a strangling somewhere in the country.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[bmcd308 0]

Actually, the problem is that those who would like to ban them use a strategyu of incrementalism, which is indeed a slippery slope. Their rhetoric is that we can't ban them outright yet, but we can do THIS to make them less convenient. Then later, we'll try to do some more, with each prior success making each new initiative look more reasonable, and with the failures of each prior measure being attributed to the fact that the measures did not go far enough.

The anti-gun folks always want people who enjoy gun ownership to meet them in the middle. However, as soon as that is done, they want to meet in the middle again and again and again.

Perhaps if they had just stuck with their successes in 1932 and 1968 and then left it alone, we might believe that they would not always want more. But history shows that they always want more.

Brent

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[jfields 0]

Quote

Oh, and according to a 1997 study by the National Safety Council:

There were 13,252 homocides by firearms.

There were 15,447 deaths from falling.

Interestingly, based on the 1990 Harvard Medical Practice Studys, Doctor's negligence killed more than 90,000 people in 1997.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So people falling and medical malpractice justify homicide by firearm? A rather peculiar philosophy.

Maybe if I die from a heart attack that will justify a strangling somewhere in the country.

[sarcasm]

Gun-Owner Rant

Do you know how many people died in accidents with buckets...

No, no, never mind the buckets!

Do you know how many people died of old age last year? Millions! So why don't you go ahead and ban old age. It makes as much sense as banning guns that only kill thousands of people every year!

[/sarcasm]

[billvon 3,109]

>But history shows that they always want more.

And there are gun nuts who always want less. Most reasonable people are willing to meet in the middle. The existence of an extremist does not justify becoming an extremist; disliking Rush Limbaugh does not mean you have to become Al Franken to counteract him. They do a pretty good job of cancelling each other out.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

There are two choices:
1) You fail to comprehend the consequences of gun ownership in America.
2) You don't care about the consequences.

There is not one "gun owner", therefore, the consequences are not the same.

For criminals, the consequences have become so high that the gun-related crime is declining. That is a solution for that problem.

Also, studies have shown that there is an 80-20 rule for crime. 80% of crime is caused by 20% of the criminals (career criminals). The 3-strikes rules have reduced their numbers.

For law-abiding gun-owners, there is an accident rate. To deal with that, there is now a trigger-lock law in Florida. That is a partial solution to that problem.

People are dealing with the problems of ownership.

However, on the other side, no one will accept the consequences of a gun ban. Crime does grow. The police aren't everywhere, especially in rural areas where they are virtually ineffective.

(edited for English)

[bmcd308 0]

>>And there are gun nuts who always want less.<<

Of course. But there are few gun control supporters who do not want more. Where would you stop?

>>Most reasonable people are willing to meet in the middle.<<

How many times?

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[jfields 0]

Quote

>>Most reasonable people are willing to meet in the middle.<<

How many times?

So far, I have yet to see even one, thus bringing into question whether the people are even reasonable.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

So far, I have yet to see even one, thus bringing into question whether the people are even reasonable.

For the reasons that I stated above, I see people identifying problems and some solutions. People are coming up with reasonable answers. There is a huge amount of dialogue and it seems to be working.

I also see that extreme views on either side have created problems. That is the part that I look at. Does a solution create more problems than it solves?

[billvon 3,109]

>>Most reasonable people are willing to meet in the middle.<<

>How many times?

As many times as it takes. Sometimes you add a gun control law/rule/guideline - sometimes you remove one. If we have lots of laws I would be more against adding another one; if we have very few ineffective laws I'd be more prone to support a good law that slows the spread of guns used for crime.

My position is that any adult, sane, law-abiding citizen has a right to own a gun. Commit a felony or be judged insane and you lose that right. I'd support any laws that keep guns out of the hands of kids, criminals or the mentally unfit, and be against any law that prohibits ordinary people from owning guns. Measures like waiting periods or background checks are judgement calls; it depends on how the law's written and implemented.

[bmcd308 0]

>>As many times as it takes<<

That is the problem. If I say I want to punch you in the face twice, and you don't think I should punch you in the face at all, and we meet in the middle, I have still punched you in the face.

As soon as I finish, I say that I want to punch you in the face twice again. You say that you don't want me to hit you at all. So we meet in the middle again.

Pretty soon it will start to seem to you like meeting me in the middle is not doing you much good, and you'll be arguing the extreme position that if I punch you in the face one more time, you'll kick my a$$.


>>sometimes you remove one.<<

Those times seem a lot more rare to me than the times you add one.

In general, I agree with your position.

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com