New data on child deaths released--How involved are guns really?

[bill2 0]

"I think it is okay for people to own guns *responsibly*, but many people don't care at all about either their own safety or of those around them. If it takes some laws (existing, new, revised, whatever) to steer people onto the path of responsibility, then I'm fine with that. No system can ever be perfect, but it could be a lot better than it is."
_____________________
I do also, but many of the anti gun groups want to ban all guns, one step at a time. There have been numerous quotes from various gun control people/organizations (Rosie Odonnel, VPC - Violency Prevention Center who used to call themselves Handgun control by the way). If gun owners weren't fighting against gun ban efforts, they might be more amenable to some gun control efforts. However, due to the statements of many gun control backers that the best way to get rid of guns is to tighten up restrictions one step at a time, you probably will not see much compromise on this issue.
--------------

"When I wanted a drivers license, I had to go to drivers ed. I had to know some basics and watch the gory "idiot drivers getting hit by trains" videos. I also had to physically demonstrate my aptitude before getting the license. It ought to be at least as hard to buy a handgun as to get a drivers license."
________________
Imagine if getting a car and license was as hard as getting a permit to own or carry. Imagine if you had to go to the police (auto accidents after all do kill tens of thousands of people every year), and explain why you wanted a car, and then have the police deny you the right to own a car by saying there doesn't appear to be a valid reason for you to have a car. Then imagine going outside and seeing some of the sheriff's buddys driving by and finding out that they had donated significant amounts of money to the sherriff's reelection campaign. Of course when you questioned the sherriff on this, you were told that this is nothing but a coincidence This happened in Santa Clara county in CA a couple of years ago. Or imaging seeing someone like Sean Penn driving by and he had a license to drive because he is, well, Sean Penn, and you - well you are no one important. Sean Penn lives in Marin county here in the bay area (it's almost impossible to get a concealed carry permit in the bay area), and does have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. He also has a felony conviction for beating one of his ex-wives and a several other criminal convictions. he obtained an exception from the CA dept of Justice and the FBI. Do you think that an ordinary citizen could do that? Permits to carry are (in states that don't have "shall issue" laws where adults can request one and be given one if they don't have felony convictions) grossly unfairly administered. You'd be surprised at the celebrities that have them - Steaven Seagal, Buddy Hackett. Even Sen Diane Feinstein of CA has had a CCW permit for 30 years now.
------------------------------
"If inadvertent child gun deaths are down, as Mike's link says, that's great. But it doesn't change the fact that the number should be zero. It doesn't change the fact that guns are used overwhelmingly to murder. The self-defense role is valid, but miniscule in comparison to the offensive criminal one in which innocent people die."
___________________
Actually the number of offensive criminal uses is small in comparison to the number of self -defense uses. By self defense uses, I also include instances where the person defending themselves just showed the gun to make the criminal leave. I read in the San Jose Mercury news back when Janet Reno was running the Justice Dept under Clinton, that the actual self defense use of guns was somewhere between 0.75 and 1.5 million times per year. The vast majority of times no shots are fired. Prof Gary Kleck of the Univ of Fl, or Florida state, estimates the number to be even higher - 2 - 4 million times per year.
Also, when anti gun folks start quoting gun deaths for children, or people overall, they never break down the numbers. Over half of all gun deaths are from suicide, and of the rest many are from criminal shooting each other or being shot by police. When anti gun people quote numbers for children dying by gunshot, they include "children" up to the age of 23, including those shot by police in the commission of a crime.



I do agree with Bill Von about both left and right being rather inflexible on various issues: abortion rights activists (just like gun control people!) refuse to consider any restriction on abortion, such as late term abortion and if you heard a description of one you might be against it too.

[mnischalke 0]

excellent post

(except VPC is the Violence Policy Center and is rabidly anti-gun and is currently trying to ban .50-cal. rifles, although only one illegal use has been ever documented. Handgun Control Inc., on the other hand, changed its name to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence to appeal to middle America since they were getting their asses kicked around by both legislators and the judicial system. HCI has always tried to appeal to middle America by calling for "sensible" gun restrictions, regulation and registration. Both groups share the same ultimate goal no matter what name they go by or by what means they attempt it--complete disarmament of this nation.)

mike

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

[Steel 0]

I like the way you put all that together. Hopefully somebody will learn something from it. I think its all pretty obvious but some people need to see the numbers for themselves. Then again most of the anti-gun people will find away around the facts you just presented and next week not even remember having read it.
I want stress something you brought up which addresses what Bill Von said. It was about dissmissing anti-gun legistation before even considering if it was reasonable. There is a reason for this. That reason is that all the anti-gun legislation is pushed foward by radical lobbies with one goal in mind, to ban guns one step at a time. Now they can't do this honestly because not everybody is that stupid. So they have to decieve their way through. Take the Brady Bill for instance. They sell this by saying all it does is create a 5 day waiting period before someone can purchase a gun. What a crock that is! This bill is actually 1100 pages long and there is so so so much more to it than that. It even has a clause in there that calls for taxing bullets 1000%. That means making my bullets cost me 11 times as much. That would assure that I couldn't afford to go to the range. I must admit I have not read the bill but I know what the people who wrote it had in mind and what they were trying to accomplish.
All I can say is as long as we have the NRA the second amendment will have people trying to preserve it. Thank god for that.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[billvon 3,090]

>It was about dissmissing anti-gun legistation before even
>considering if it was reasonable. There is a reason for this. That
>reason is that all the anti-gun legislation is pushed foward by radical
> lobbies with one goal in mind, to ban guns one step at a time.

Careful there. A leftist could say that the NRA is sponsored by militias who all have arsenals of illegal assault weapons, so why should criminals have a say in what gets done with guns? And that would be as accurate as saying that all gun control legislation is pushed by radical anti-gun lobbies.

There are lunatic (and criminal) gun owners who support the NRA because they want to keep, and use, their guns no matter what the impact to other people. That doesn't mean the NRA is a criminal organization. There are radical left wingers who want all guns banned. That doesn't mean that all gun control legislation has a hidden agenda of a total gun-ownership ban, although the NRA would love for people to believe that.

Like I said before, most people realize there's a balance there. Some gun control is good. I would be for any law, for example, that prohibits convicted felons from buying or owning guns. And if such a law were to pass, it would not be the first step towards total banning of guns, but rather the result of reasonable people working towards the goal of making sure most people can both own guns and be more certain that they will not be killed through a criminal's use of them.

[jfields 0]

Gee... where to start?

PhillyKev,

Quote

There is a constitutional right to have firearms, not to drive.

We have collectively been around and around on that one in the forums. I disagree that there is a constitutional right to the unlimited access to firearms that the NRA and other gun lobbyists claim. The Supreme Court generally agrees with me. We won't get anywhere on that issue. If the NRA were right, mandatory waiting periods, concealed carry applications, handgun purchase limits and other things would all be declared unconstitutional. They haven't been, because those things don't violate the second amendment.

Quote

Also, your stats on the number of guns used in self defense were way off. It's 65,000 to 80,000 times per year that firearms are used defensively.

I said times that the firearms were used, no just brandished or mentioned. That is the number of "justified homicides". So that is different than the total amount of deterence. But the number does not include police usage, just civilian. So the numbers stand valid as described. The number people murdered with firearms is 50 times higher than the number of bad people (burglars, criminals, etc.) killed by citizens in self-defense.

Quote

It's not paranoia, it's reality.

It is both. I've lived right outside Washington DC for over 30 years. In that whole time, I have known one single person that has been confronted with a gun. He owns a jewelry store. The store was held up. He did not fight the robber. The robber took the money and left. Actually, had my friend resisted, the store's insurance wouldn't have covered the damages, not to mention that he would probably be dead. The policies are written to exclude damages caused after any resistance by the store owner. The insurance companies consider the financial liablity and chance of policyholder death to be significantly higher if they resist.

Bill2,

Quote

Actually the number of offensive criminal uses is small in comparison to the number of self -defense uses. By self defense uses, I also include instances where the person defending themselves just showed the gun to make the criminal leave.

I disagree. Let's stick to the tangible facts. As I mentioned above to Kevin, the FBI stats show a 50:1 ratio of murders to justifiable homicides in self-defense.

You mention the times when showing a weapon saved people's lives. That is unprovable, so let's dismiss it. You can't know what the outcome would have been had they not had the gun because it didn't happen. People also claim that reduced firearm ownership wouldn't stop any criminals from murdering with other weapons. Also unproveable. To be fair, I won't claim that none of them would find other ways. The truth is somewhere in the middle. But if you toss out all the wild guesses, you are left with that factual concrete 50:1 ratio. It is hardly an overwhelming justification for firearm ownership.

I'm not saying responsible people shouldn't be able to own firearms. Not at all. I'm just saying that we should be realistic in our assessment of how they will be used and why you really want them. Saying, "I think they are cool and I like blowing up targets at the range" is perfectly honest. Having used firearms in the military, I agree with that. They are cool, and using them (safely) is fun. Let's just be straightforward with our reasonings.

You go on some about the discrepancies between treatment of "Hollywood" people and "regular" people in terms of treatment by police regarding firearms. I don't know the facts about the actors you mention, but I don't really care either. I agree with you. Whatever laws we have should be equally and impartially enforced. They deserve no special treatment or exceptions.

BillVon,

Quote

Like I said before, most people realize there's a balance there. Some gun control is good. I would be for any law, for example, that prohibits convicted felons from buying or owning guns. And if such a law were to pass, it would not be the first step towards total banning of guns, but rather the result of reasonable people working towards the goal of making sure most people can both own guns and be more certain that they will not be killed through a criminal's use of them.

Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes! Everyone else, pay attention. What Bill said, until I'm blue in the face.

No longer just to Bill...

I'm far from a radical representative of the left. I'm actually pretty close to the middle. In this particular forum, I haven't honestly seen much of the far left. The far right is well represented.

It frustrates me that both extremes are completely blind to the reality of the situation. A complete gun ban is both impractical and unjust. Unlimited gun ownership is equally silly. The way I see things, we are a little to the right (too much access) of where we should be.

Gun control does need to be stricter. That goes hand in hand with tougher penalties for people misusing firearms, and on criminal behavior in general. Better education would help the situation greatly, by reducing the number of people who see crime as their only option.

Better laws and tighter gun control actually help the rights of gun owners. By having a sharper division between law-abiding citizens with guns and criminals with guns, the latter get punished harder and become less common. This leaves the honest folks with fewer negative associations in the minds of people that don't own guns.

Instead of defending every possible gun issue unequivocally, gun advocates should be striving hard to improve gun safety and reduce the criminal uses of firearms. Rather than fighting for easy private sales and resisting government efforts to close gun show loopholes and the like, gun advocates should be doing everything they can to reduce the flow of weapons into the criminal realm. Not even counting morality or decency, they should do all these things out of self-interest.

When the body counts decrease, people have less hostility toward gun owners and you'd find you wouldn't have to be on the defensive all the time. You would be amazed how little people care one way or the other about guns when it ceases being a practical concern to them and their families. The opposition you face would drop directly with the drop in firearm violence. Note that I'm not saying a drop in firearm ownership, just violence. When people stop getting shot, the huge middle range of national opinion would cease caring. A few folks on the far left will always complain, but not enough to hinder your use of your firearms.

The future of your firearm ownership rests on your ability to use them responsibly and to support measures that keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The nature of our country has changed in the last 300 years. Few people rely on firearms for their daily food, to defend against wild animals or to repel foriegn invaders. Instead of being a standard part of nearly every home, they are moving to be a luxury item owned in more concentrated numbers by a smaller percentage of the population. With the changing of cultural standards and the reduction of actual need, the gradual tide is shifting against widespread firearm ownership. The best way to protect your use of firearms in the shifting future is to minimize the associated negative repercussions of firearms. That is the battle you should be fighting.

[jfields 0]

Where have all the righties gone? Please tell me I didn't kill this thread by posting something so sensible that you agree with me.

Or are you all busy reloading?

[DYEVOUT 0]

Your company has grown tiresome.

And yes, we are reloading (what with the price of ammo these days)

----------------=8^)----------------------
"I think that was the wrong tennis court."

[Luv2Fall 0]

Actually, I have been running CLP patches through the bores of my military rifles that compose my collection.........like to do that once in a while especially when they have been setting for a while.

Edited for piss poor grammer.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

As I mentioned above to Kevin, the FBI stats show a 50:1 ratio of murders to justifiable homicides in self-defense.

Bogus stat.

The total number of murders does not represent murders with guns. The majority of them are not from guns.

The number of justifiable homicides does not represent the number of times a gun is used in self defense. The majority of the time the attacker isn't killed (or even necessarily shot).

Quote

I said times that the firearms were used, no just brandished

What's the difference? If a gun is used to stop a crime or defend yourself, it doesn't matter if the trigger was pulled.

[jfields 0]

Quote

Bogus stat.

The total number of murders does not represent murders with guns. The majority of them are not from guns.

Incorrect. That was just firearms.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/xl/01tbl2-17.xls

Quote

I said times that the firearms were used, no just brandished
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's the difference? If a gun is used to stop a crime or defend yourself, it doesn't matter if the trigger was pulled.

There is a huge difference. It is like putting a Cypres in your rig and saying it saved your life, even though you've never had a malfunction. Until you go through the event (burglary, holdup, or skydiving malfunction) without the tool, you can't know that it saved you. Maybe you would save yourself, or the problem would go away.

We can look at actual events one way or the other. How many people are murdered with firearms? How many people kill (or even wound, if you can find stats) with firearms in self-defense? Simple posession of the weapon is not conclusive evidence that the outcome would have been different in its absence.

But this is really a minor side point to what I was getting at in the end of my prior lengthy post.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I would be for any law, for example, that prohibits convicted felons from buying or owning guns.

There already is, but it is not enforced sufficiently. I know it's a tired saying, but adding more laws isn't the answer, that just restricts the legal gun owners more for no benefit. The answer is to enforce the laws that already exist.

Example..."assault weapons" ban:

Certain design features legally define an "assault weapon". Some of these, like pistol grips, grip extensions, and compensators are designed to make them more accurate, and hence, safer. Others, such as a bayonet lug merely add weight to the firearm. These weapons share a family resemblance with their fully automatic military-issue cousins. They fire the same caliber of ammunition.
This ammunition, interestingly, was specifically designed not to kill, but more likely wound the enemy soldier. Military tacticians have determined that in ground fighting it is more effective to incapacitate enemy infantrymen than to kill them. More enemy personnel are tied up giving first aid and evacuating their wounded. The cries of the incapacitated dismay and dishearten their comrades and are a very powerful psychological weapon. On the other hand, the larger cartridges used in WWI and WWII were designed to kill quickly and efficiently. These are the calibers used nowadays by deer hunters in their more politically correct hunting rifles with hardwood stocks.

In 1994, you were eleven times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by an "assault weapon". *Source-FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994. This was before the Federal assault weapons ban.

"Assault weapons" are used in only 2-3% of crimes involving firearms.*Source- Justice Department Analysis, 1990.

Even weapons misclassified as "assault weapons" (common in the Federal and California assault weapons confiscations) are used in less than 1% of all homicides. *Source- FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1993.

-Los Angeles: In 1998, 3% of weapons confiscated by the police were classified as "assault weapons". in 1998, of 538 documented gun incidents, only one (0.2%) involved an "assault weapon".

San Francisco: In 1998, only 2.2% of confiscated weapons were "assault weapons".

-San Diego: Between 1988 and 1990, only 0.3% of confiscated weapons were "assault weapons".

For the rest of the nation:

-Between 1980 and 1994, only 2% of confiscated guns were "assault weapons".

- Just over 2% of criminals that used guns used "assault weapons".

-Only 1% of police officers murdered were killed using "assault weapons".

[Jib 0]

Essentially, what you are saying is that gun owners are criminals waiting to happen in the minds of many people. But, somehow stronger laws will differentiate them from criminals, because with stronger laws, people won't die. So, when Eutopia arrives there will be guns, whew! Now, it's the burden of responsible gun owners to save these lives. Since their programs aimed at children's safety have been refused and criminals really don't care, we must need these stronger laws. "We need to close the gun show loophole." Do you even know what it purportedly is aside from buzz words from the far left?
Let me know when you come up with legislation that actually keeps guns from criminals. Or better yet, how about enforcing the ones we already have.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[Jib 0]

Quote

Simple posession of the weapon is not conclusive evidence that the outcome would have been different in its absence.

I want you to imagine yourself as a criminal. In one state, people can carry firearms and 3 miles away across the border in another, they can't. Which state are you going to attack someone?

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Incorrect. That was just firearms.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/xl/01tbl2-17.xls

That link is for justifiable homicide. You claimed 50 times as many people are murdered with guns than the number of people who use a gun in self defense. I don't see that stat.

Quote

Simple posession of the weapon is not conclusive evidence that the outcome would have been different in its absence.

Using a firearm to murder someone is not conclusive evidence that the outcome would have been different in its absence.

Sure, we can skew the statistics all you want. But if even one single person is saved because they had a handgun for self defense, that's enough justification to me that any law abiding, mentally stable citizen should have that same opportunity.

[jfields 0]

Quote

Essentially, what you are saying is that gun owners are criminals waiting to happen in the minds of many people.

Actually, I wasn't saying that, even though in some small percentage, it will be true.

What I was saying is that people don't like violent crime involving firearms. You can address that a number of ways. Reduce the number of firearms, reduce the number of criminals on the street, or both. Personally, I prefer both.

Quote

Let me know when you come up with legislation that actually keeps guns from criminals.

Let's start small and work our way up. Why don't you show me how to prevent accidental deaths caused by legally-owned guns, then we'll deal with the criminals next.

Quote

Or better yet, how about enforcing the ones we already have.

I did already say we should do a better job of enforcement.

[mnischalke 0]

And in some small percentage, skydivers are fatalities.

Going back to agreeing to disagree, as long as in the future, you don't passive aggressively call me a moron, yet again.

mike

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

[jfields 0]

Quote

Using a firearm to murder someone is not conclusive evidence that the outcome would have been different in its absence.

That is true, as I acknowledged already. That is why I suggested we leave out the hypotheticals in both directions and stick to the facts.

Quote

That link is for justifiable homicide. You claimed 50 times as many people are murdered with guns than the number of people who use a gun in self defense. I don't see that stat.

If you are not a police officer, and you kill someone with a firearm, what reasons would it be ruled justified?

Quote

Sure, we can skew the statistics all you want. But if even one single person is saved because they had a handgun for self defense, that's enough justification to me that any law abiding, mentally stable citizen should have that same opportunity.

I disagree. If one person could be saved by having a .... (fill in the blank), ... should be available to everyone, no matter how many other inadvert deaths it causes.

Lets try:

grenade
tank
opiate
nerve agent

The logic quickly falls apart, because the damage to society is too great. The options of the individual are not unlimited where they interfere with the rights of others.

[jfields 0]

Quote

And in some small percentage, skydivers are fatalities.

Sadly, that is true as well.

Quote

Going back to agreeing to disagree, as long as in the future, you don't passive aggressively call me a moron, yet again.

Only when you are, Mike, only when you are. Feel the love.

[Luv2Fall 0]

An interesting read.....

http://www.vcdl.org/new/raging.htm

[Jib 0]

[replyLet's start small and work our way up. Why don't you show me how to prevent accidental deaths caused by legally-owned guns, then we'll deal with the criminals next.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

The options of the individual are not unlimited where they interfere with the rights of others.

I agree...but we disagree on where those limits should be. I prefer to err on the side of personal liberties and individual freedom as opposed to benefit of the collective.

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That link is for justifiable homicide. You claimed 50 times as many people are murdered with guns than the number of people who use a gun in self defense. I don't see that stat.

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


If you are not a police officer, and you kill someone with a firearm, what reasons would it be ruled justified?

If you believe that you are in imminent danger of being killed or grieviously harmed, and if the person you killed has the means and ability to do just that.

But I'm looking for your numbers of total number of people murdered with guns. That stat was not on your link.

[jfields 0]

Quote

The options of the individual are not unlimited where they interfere with the rights of others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree...but we disagree on where those limits should be. I prefer to err on the side of personal liberties and individual freedom as opposed to benefit of the collective.

Fair enough. I think that is a place we can continue to disagree, in a civil fashion. Even with that difference, I think we can both agree that it is in our best interest to find ways to reduce crime, accidental firearm deaths and the number of guns in the hands of criminals. Those objectives suit us both.

Quote

But I'm looking for your numbers of total number of people murdered with guns. That stat was not on your link.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/xl/01tbl2-10.xls

[Jib 0]

Quote

Quote

If you are not a police officer, and you kill someone with a firearm, what reasons would it be ruled justified?

If you believe that you are in imminent danger of being killed or grieviously harmed, and if the person you killed has the means and ability to do just that.

Actually, it depends from state to state. In Florida, it includes:

"... the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary .... to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. " F.S. 776.012. The whole statute reads:

Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[billvon 3,090]

>>I would be for any law, for example, that prohibits convicted felons from buying or owning guns.

>There already is . .

According to Kennedy there is not. Apparently it is unconstitutional to ask someone if they're a convicted felon, so law officers may not use that question to arrest someone for illegal gun possession. There was a rather famous case that established this.

[jfields 0]

Quote

Since I assume you mean children getting hold of guns, to add pain to the family member who allowed them to get hold of it, throw them in jail forever. Same thing for drownings in pools, falling down stairs and other parental failures to supervise their kids.

I see your point. But what about when your failure to supervise your kids handling of the gun you don't need to own leads to the death of my child. You aren't the one grieving. If seeing you tossed in jail forever would keep a second innocent child from being killed by your carelessness, I'd be fine with that.

Quote

The only thing you can do is allow Eddie Eagle (NRA), 4-H, scouts, police, etc to educate children about guns. But, there are many people who don't want their children exposed to guns, condoms or anything else they don't feel is appropriate.

That is their perrogotive. The safety of their children with regards to guns owned by other people is the responsibility of the other people. However wise firearm education might be, it is their option. Even if they choose not to teach their children those things, it isn't their fault of their child is hurt from the actions of another. Some personal responsibility of the part of the firearm owners is in order.