Here's a case where Stand your ground probably should not have been evoked

[B_J 2,752]

You also conveniently ignore my stated position on gun ownership and carrying a gun. I support it. All I'm asking for from you is a little intellectual honesty and admit that, yes, having a gun in your home statistically raises the risk of harm to yourself and your family and that also, statistically, more people are killed from the misuse of guns than situations where someone legitimately defended their life by lethally shooting a perpetrator. This is a wild west fantasy that gun enthusiasts continue to fib about in spite of the facts.

You're probably right that more people are killed from the misuse of guns; however, to be fair, most of the gun enthusiasts here talk a lot about proper training. There will always be people who own guns and have no idea what they are doing and the gun enthusiasts here will never deny their right to own a gun if they choose. However, it's important to be fair and recognize their emphasis on knowing what you're doing so you don't misuse guns.

Look, if your first line of self-defense is your gun, more power to you. I'll even defend your right to do so. Just don't tell me that you primary choice is the best choice for most citizens, because it's not. We can have all the gun ownership protection laws on the books, but the one thing that will hinder you from having that first line of self-defense in the real world is that many private establishments don't allow weapons onto their property. Private property trumps the 2nd Amendment as it does the 1st Amendment.

Of course, the real world also prohibits walking into a Luby's and shooting people. But that's why the gun enthusiasts insist on protecting the 2nd amendment. There will always be people willing to break the law in a lethal manner.

Perpetrators with a gun will always have the element of surprise on their side, so law-abiding, gun-toting citizens will be at a disadvantage. A random shooter entering a crowded establishment presents all kinds of logistical problems even if you were able to draw your gun and shoot back at them, like people behind them. I don't know what other solution there is, however, to preventing those kinds of acts of violence, but just admit that statistics are against you and if you can manage to pull off an old western, one-shot kill without killing any innocent bystanders, then God bless you.

The problem seems to be that, when all the victims are unarmed; the only option they have is to be a victim. If they are armed, there is at least a chance of defending oneself.

In the interest of fairness, I'll point out that I don't own a gun and never have.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You're probably right that more people are killed from the misuse of guns

Well, it's nice to hear that from someone else, but I have yet to hear that from a gun enthusiast. That's the issue I'm pointing out, particularly to xebec, who believes not only that a gun provides the average person with added personal safety, but that it doesn't raise the risk for unintended injury or death to yourself and family. So ironically, purchasing a gun for the primary purpose of protecting yourself and family actually increases your risk, statistically. If the gun lobby and gun enthusiasts were intellectually honest about that truth, it would take the air out of their promotion of gun ownership for every 'law-abiding' citizen.

Look, if your first line of self-defense is your gun, more power to you. I'll even defend your right to do so. Just don't tell me that you primary choice is the best choice for most citizens, because it's not. We can have all the gun ownership protection laws on the books, but the one thing that will hinder you from having that first line of self-defense in the real world is that many private establishments don't allow weapons onto their property. Private property trumps the 2nd Amendment as it does the 1st Amendment.

Of course, the real world also prohibits walking into a Luby's and shooting people. But that's why the gun enthusiasts insist on protecting the 2nd amendment. There will always be people willing to break the law in a lethal manner.

Do you think citizens have the right to ignore private properties rights of establishments that forbid weapons based on the premise that some crazed person might try to mow them down? This is an important point as gun enthusiasts uphold their right to carry as one of, if not the most important constitutional rights they have. They argue that if a private establishment cannot infringe upon your civil rights, then they shouldn't be able to keep you from bringing your weapon on to their property. It would be interesting to see such an argument discussed by the Supreme Court.

Perpetrators with a gun will always have the element of surprise on their side, so law-abiding, gun-toting citizens will be at a disadvantage. A random shooter entering a crowded establishment presents all kinds of logistical problems even if you were able to draw your gun and shoot back at them, like people behind them. I don't know what other solution there is, however, to preventing those kinds of acts of violence, but just admit that statistics are against you and if you can manage to pull off an old western, one-shot kill without killing any innocent bystanders, then God bless you.

The problem seems to be that, when all the victims are unarmed; the only option they have is to be a victim. If they are armed, there is at least a chance of defending oneself.

In the interest of fairness, I'll point out that I don't own a gun and never have.

I disagree. Look at banks, for example. I doubt we'll ever see a bank allow its customers to carry weapons, even though banks are habitually targeted by armed robbers. What they have instead is security measures, including armed guards to deal with such situations. There is no full proof way to stop a perpetrator who is dead set on causing carnage upon others. That's the stark reality. Yet, the gun lobby and gun enthusiasts envision a country of peaceful citizens, who are ready to thwart off anyone who tries to disrupt that peace by drawing their gun. This is a wild west fantasy that doesn't hold any water to reality. Can a gun be an effective method of self-defense? Yes, but not in all situations. In fact, for most citizens, it makes little sense to own and carry a gun for personal protection. That doesn't mean you don't have right to or that some librul commie is trying to take away your toys. It just means that the ideal of gun ownership for all law-abiding citizens by the gun lobby is fantasy based, ignores the statistics and is intellectually dishonest.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gun Deaths & Injuries

In 2009...

Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2009, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.³

Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.⁴

.............

Homicide

Guns were used in 11,493 homicides in the U.S. in 2009, comprising over 36% of all gun deaths, and over 68% of all homicides.⁶

.............

Regions and states with higher rates of gun ownership have significantly higher rates of homicide than states with lower rates of gun ownership.⁸

Where guns are prevalent, there are significantly more homicides, particularly gun homicides.⁹

^...........

Suicide

Firearms were used in 18,735 suicides in the U.S. in 2009, constituting almost 60% of all gun deaths.¹⁰

Over 50% of all suicides are committed with a firearm.¹¹

...........

The risk of suicide increases in homes where guns are kept loaded and/or unlocked.¹⁷

.........

People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.²¹

Domestic Violence

Firearms were used to kill more than two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicide victims between 1990 and 2005.²⁷

Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 23 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force.²⁸

Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm.²⁹

A recent survey of female domestic violence shelter residents in California found that more than one third (36.7%) reported having been threatened or harmed with a firearm.³⁰ In nearly two thirds (64.5%) of the households that contained a firearm, the intimate partner had used the firearm against the victim, usually threatening to shoot or kill the victim.³¹

.............

Costs of Gun Violence

Firearm-related deaths and injuries result in estimated medical costs of $2.3 billion each year – half of which are borne by U.S. taxpayers.³⁵

^............

Dangers of Gun Use for Self-Defense

Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.⁴⁷

Of the 13,636 Americans who were murdered in 2009, only 215 were killed by firearms (165 by handguns) in homicides by private citizens that law enforcement determined were justifiable.⁴⁸

...............

Dangers of Permissive Carrying Concealed Weapons (CCW) Laws

Shall-issue laws permitting the carrying of concealed firearms (CCW) (where law enforcement has no discretion in issuing a permit or license) do not appear to reduce crime, and no credible statistical evidence exists that such permissive CCW laws reduce crime. There is evidence permissive CCW laws generally will increase crime.⁵⁹

A National Academy of Sciences report reviewing existing data on the effectiveness of firearm laws, including research purporting to demonstrate that concealed carry (also called "right-to-carry") laws reduce crime, found that the "evidence to date does not adequately indicate either the sign or the magnitude of a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates."⁶⁰

An analysis of Texas' CCW law, (a law adopted in 1995 that overturned the state's 125-year ban on concealed weapons), found that between January 1, 1996 and August 31, 2001, Texas license holders were arrested for 5,314 crimes, including murder, rape, kidnapping and theft.⁶¹

From 1996 to 2000, Texas CCW holders were arrested for weapons-related crimes at a rate 81% higher than that of the state's general population age 21 and older.⁶²

Since the Texas law took effect, more than 400 criminals – including rapists and armed robbers – had been issued CCW permits, and thousands of the 215,000 permit holders have been arrested for criminal behavior or found to be mentally unstable.⁶³ The "largest category of problem licensees involve[d] those who committed crimes after getting their state" permits.⁶⁴

http://www.lcav.org/..._statistics.asp

Does this mean we should throw out the 2nd Amendment? Nope. All this shows is that the gun lobby and enthusiasts alike need to be a bit more honest about the benefit to risk of owning a gun.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Mister Fancypants

[xebec 195]

All I'm asking for from you is a little intellectual honesty and admit that, yes, having a gun in your home statistically raises the risk of harm to yourself and your family and that also, statistically, more people are killed from the misuse of guns than situations where someone legitimately defended their life by lethally shooting a perpetrator. This is a wild west fantasy that gun enthusiasts continue to fib about in spite of the facts.

Why would I admit something that you have failed to establish? Show me your data. Show me your facts. Don't just keep feeding us the same opinion again and again. Where do you get the numbers that demonstrate that "more people are killed from the misuse of guns than situations where someone legitimately defended their life by lethally shooting a perpetrator?" Are we just supposed to take your word for this, and admit our "dishonesty?" Speaking of dishonesty, why do you only allow for lethal use of a firearm in self-defense? Show me something that proves your "wild-west fantasy" theory, or quit calling me dishonest.

Further, you say that guns in the home are a danger that, presumably, you believe outweigh the benefiets. Take a look at the Brady bunch's stats ( I know you must trust Sahra Brady ) Brady Bunch that shows in 2007 just over 600 people died from accidental fireams incedents. Compare that to the nearly 100a day who die from accidental poisoning- most in the home. CDC Of course, you and the other progs will act like you don't understand the comparison, because for you the only dangers come from firearms- everything else is irrelevant (i.e. not relevant to your political belief system) All sorts of things raise the risk of accidental death..... and they all have a use. This is a personal cost-benefeit analysis sort of thing, and you aren't qualified to do that analysis for anyone except yourself.

Look, if your first line of self-defense is your gun, more power to you. I'll even defend your right to do so. Just don't tell me that you primary choice is the best choice for most citizens, because it's not. We can have all the gun ownership protection laws on the books, but the one thing that will hinder you from having that first line of self-defense in the real world is that many private establishments don't allow weapons onto their property. Private property trumps the 2nd Amendment as it does the 1st Amendment.

Once again, you talk about dishonesty and fibbing, and then go on to make a uniformrd generalization in an area you seem to have virtually no expertise in. Back up your point with something tangible- why is a firearm not the best choice for "most citizens?" Show me some data, or keep your judgements about honesty out of the debate.

Perpetrators with a gun will always have the element of surprise on their side, so law-abiding, gun-toting citizens will be at a disadvantage. A random shooter entering a crowded establishment presents all kinds of logistical problems even if you were able to draw your gun and shoot back at them, like people behind them. I don't know what other solution there is, however, to preventing those kinds of acts of violence, but just admit that statistics are against you and if you can manage to pull off an old western, one-shot kill without killing any innocent bystanders, then God bless you.

No. Wrong again. Perps often telegraph their intentions in a variety of ways. And people who are armed can prepare and train themselves to be aware of their environment and the behavior associated with criminality. Most people who deal with this in any depth (especially civilian and police trainers) understand that and sudden, lethal ambush by criminals is extremely rare (and your scenarios seem to dwell on this rare occurance)- instead criminals to to buld up to a crime, displaying all sorts of readable behaviors prior to an encounter.

"Even if you were able to draw your gun and fire it?" Fancypants..... I personally have drawn and fired a weapon many thousands of times. I don't understand what you believe to be so "logistically challenging" about this. That's why handguns are the most effective form of defense during a violent encounter....they are concealable, ergonomic, effective, and easy to operate. And I don't intend to "pull off" any sort of "one-shot kill", ..... and neither do other armed citizens who know what they are about. If I firea weapon at a person, I intend to fire the number of rounds it takes to stop the threat. You truly think that people can't hit what they shoot at? What about police? Should they be putting around unarmed, because getting a hit without killing bystanders is just some "wild-west fantasy?" Again, you speak to things you obviously don't understand. Just because you have no confidence or competence with a firearm doesn't mean that others don't.

Edited May 4, 2012 by xebec

[xebec 195]

http://www.lcav.org/..._statistics.asp

Does this mean we should throw out the 2nd Amendment? Nope. All this shows is that the gun lobby and enthusiasts alike need to be a bit more honest about the benefit to risk of owning a gun.

A gun-control organization is your source? You can do better than this fancypants. I haven't linked the NRA.....you should refrain from using interested gun-control organizations to "prove" your arguments. By the way.....you conveniently left off the sources for your gun-grabber's website. You highlighted the quote associated with footnote 47. I wonder what that source is? Let's see it..... (I can't link it from work....it's blocked as "political activism" )

Edited May 4, 2012 by xebec

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A gun-control organization is your source? You can do better than this fancypants. I haven't linked the NRA.....you should refrain from using interested gun-control organizations to "prove" your arguments.

Every statistic has a hyperlinked reference number that you can click on for verification.

[Ban Hammer 13,641]

What, you can't carry with you a gun unless you can conceal it in Texas? I've seen holstered guns on persons in Arizona before the concealed law took into effect. But more importantly, if Luby's had a sign on the front forbidding weapons of any kind, then no conceal carry law would circumvent that unless you believe your right to carry supersedes private property rights.

red herring.

so what, that's arizona which had open carry already.

and if there was a sign, i'm sure george hennard would have obeyed it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

red herring.

so what, that's arizona which had open carry already.

and if there was a sign, i'm sure george hennard would have obeyed it.

It's not a red herring. It's the main point. If you aren't allowed to carry a weapon into an establishment, then how are you going to stop some random shooter from mowing down a dozen or so people? Are you advocating that those who conceal carry disregard private property rights?

[xebec 195]

Every statistic has a hyperlinked reference number that you can click on for verification.

I will click it and do you the service aof disassembling your "source" when I get to my own computer. In the meantime, I'll give you an example of why a gun-control website is a poor choice for this application.

Your source says:

An analysis of Texas' CCW law, (a law adopted in 1995 that overturned the state's 125-year ban on concealed weapons), found that between January 1, 1996 and August 31, 2001, Texas license holders were arrested for 5,314 crimes, including murder, rape, kidnapping and theft.61

Hmmmm.... interesting. Of course they cite arrests. But what about convictions? Wow! only 808. And around half of those were for "unlawful carry" which means that the CHL holder screwed up and took his pistol into a court house or post office. Not the violent wave of murders and rapes by CHL holders your source wants to portray, is it? The clearly have an agenda, and will obscure the reality with dishonest hype. Crappy source and massive fail for fancypants.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

[xebec 195]

It's not a red herring. It's the main point. If you aren't allowed to carry a weapon into an establishment, then how are you going to stop some random shooter from mowing down a dozen or so people? Are you advocating that those who conceal carry disregard private property rights?

I can't remember the last time I saw a legal no ccw sign on a restaurant or store here. I often see the sing that says "unlawful posession of a firearm is a felony," but ccw hostile establishments are very rare, at least in my part of the state.

[Ban Hammer 13,641]

It's not a red herring. It's the main point. If you aren't allowed to carry a weapon into an establishment, then how are you going to stop some random shooter from mowing down a dozen or so people? Are you advocating that those who conceal carry disregard private property rights?

it's a red herring, steven. let's have a quick review, which you'll probably dismiss or sidestep anyways:

Here's someone else making the same argument I'm making, but doing a better job:

October 16, 1991 George Hennard entered a Luby’s Cafeteria in Kileen, Tesas and killed 23 people, wounded 20 more and then commited suicide. Statistically one in five Texans carries a gun either in their car or on their person. That being the case there were, statistically speaking, at least four guns inside the restaurant and yet nobody used one to stop Hennard. Why?

^^this paragraph is what's in dispute, everything after the first sentence.^^^

it happened in 1991, prior to there being a concealed carry law. the paragraph discusses current times "one in five Texans carries a gun...." - not carried a gun, this is written in present tense and is probably an accurate description from what i can tell in my infrequent trips back to texas.

yet to try to mix the two - current situation carry ratio when there is a concealed carry law with an event that happened over 20 years ago when there wasn't a concealed carry law is an intellectual crime.

i know these little facts are a bit pesky, but they remain. you may have noted in my previous posts that i lived in texas during that time frame. as for carrying concealed back then, that was a good way to wind up shot by local law enforcement as it was against the law, or at the very least facing criminal charges and attorney fees. open carry was a very limited option: on your own property, while traveling in your car (which was subject to dispute by various DA's as to what that meant) and that's about it. contrary to what some may wish to believe, people in texas were not walking around with guns visible all the time in public, and concealed was not yet a law. so where does that lead to?

with the exception of hennard, no one was open carrying nor concealed carrying because neither was permitted under state law. on the local news afterward, one female who survived the ordeal stated she left her pistol in her car because she wasn't allowed to take it inside. heck of a thing to have to live with when she lost friends and relatives in the shooting....

Edited May 4, 2012 by charles!

[natty bumppo 297]

it's a red herring, steven. let's have a quick review, which you'll probably dismiss or sidestep anyways:

^^this paragraph is what's in dispute, everything after the first sentence.^^^

it happened in 1991, prior to there being a concealed carry law. the paragraph discusses current times "one in five Texans carries a gun...." - not carried a gun, this is written in present tense and is probably an accurate description from what i can tell in my infrequent trips back to texas.

yet to try to mix the two - current situation carry ratio when there is a concealed carry law with an event that happened over 20 years ago when there wasn't a concealed carry law is an intellectual crime.

i know these little facts are a bit pesky, but they remain. you may have noted in my previous posts that i lived in texas during that time frame. as for carrying concealed back then, that was a good way to wind up shot by local law enforcement as it was against the law, or at the very least facing criminal charges and attorney fees. open carry was a very limited option: on your own property, while traveling in your car (which was subject to dispute by various DA's as to what that meant) and that's about it. contrary to what some may wish to believe, people in texas were not walking around with guns visible all the time in public, and concealed was not yet a law. so where does that lead to?

with the exception of hennard, no one was open carrying nor concealed carrying because neither was permitted under state law. on the local news afterward, one female who survived the ordeal stated she left her pistol in her car because she wasn't allowed to take it inside. heck of a thing to have to live with when she lost friends and relatives in the shooting....

don't forget to add ... SB 321 which went into effect 01 sept 2011

chl's ability to carry has been expanded so they can now leave their firearms in their cars on company property.

there are some restrictions which can be read in the bill.

[xebec 195]

Every statistic has a hyperlinked reference number that you can click on for verification.

Had a little time with your article fancypants. Happy to report- no surprises...... Filled with references to the "scholarly work" of the rabidly anti-gun (and largely irrelevant, thank God) Violence Policy Center, sprinkled with bits of the completely discredited Arthur Kellerman (who's cr_p we have discussed on other threads of this ilk), and then the ever-entertaining arch-hoplophobe David Hemenway (your footnote 47- I thought I recognized his stench here). Here is what what the venerable Timothy J. Wheeler had to say about Hemenway and the cited book:

David Hemenway, a professor of health policy at Harvard University, harbors a deep aversion to guns. His book embodies the institutional prejudices of a cohort of academics notable for their abiding predisposition for state control over individuals for “the public good.” So ingrained is the bias that it almost dashes one’s hopes that firearms can ever be treated fairly in the academic literature... it is Hemenway’s manifest bias that most characterizes his book.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/book-reviews/book-review-private-guns-public-health-by-david-hemenway/

Yes...this dren has already been covered by various writers, and Hemenway has been reeling from an ongoing thrashing handed to him by a number or reviewers in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology.

Sorry fancypants, but your gun-control website does what all gun-control websites do.....endlessly cite each other, and sprinkle it with dubious monographs written by yet more statist, elitist gun-grabbers.

Try again. This time find a neutral source of statistics or other data to back your claims that guns make us less safe.

Edited May 5, 2012 by xebec

[ready4ONE 5,400]

One big glass of STFU coming up!

Fatal Firearm Injuries in the United States, 1962-1994

Violence Surveillance Summary Series, No. 3

Executive Summary    

Death due to injuries from firearms is an increasingly important public health problem. As a group, injuries from firearms were the ninth leading cause of death overall in 1994 and the fourth leading cause of years of potential life lost before age 65 (NCIPC, unpublished data). During the 33-year period covered by this report, the total number of firearm deaths increased by 130%, from 16,720 in 1962 to 38,505 in 1994. If present trends continue, firearm-related injuries could become the leading cause of deaths attributed to injury by the year 2003, surpassing injuries due to motor vehicle crashes.

This report reviews the descriptive epidemiology of firearm-related mortality in the United States from 1962-1994. The patterns of overall firearm-related mortality and of homicide, suicide, unintentional death, deaths occurring during legal intervention, and deaths of undetermined intent are examined by race, sex, and age group.

Throughout the 33-year period, suicide and homicide were responsible for most firearm fatalities; they accounted for 94% of the total in 1994. The fluctuations and overall increase in rates of total firearm-related mortality most closely resembled the pattern of firearm-related homicide. Although suicide rates were high and gradually increasing over time, they varied less than homicide rates. The rates for unintentional death from firearms, deaths during legal intervention, and deaths of undetermined intent were low and generally declined over the study period.

Firearm-related mortality affects all demographic groups, but the greatest increases in recent years were among teens 15-19 years of age, young adults aged 20-24, and older adults aged 75 and older. The rates of overall firearm-related mortality for young people aged 15-24 were higher from 1990-1994 than at any other time during the 33-year period. For those 15-19, increases in firearm-related homicide, suicide, and unintentional injury deaths were especially great. The increase in firearm-related homicide in this age group occurred among all race-sex groups. For America's elderly, rates of suicide by firearm were particularly high, and increases occurred in all race-sex groups except black females, for whom the number of suicides were too small to produce stable rates. The surveillance data in this report are intended to familiarize public health practitioners, researchers, and policymakers with the problem of firearm-related deaths in this country. While these data help characterize the magnitude of the problem and identify groups at risk, there are still gaps in our knowledge. Current surveillance efforts need to be expanded to include information about nonfatal injuries. We also need a greater understanding of the causes of firearm deaths to identify modifiable individual and societal risk factors. Finally, further research is required to plan, develop, and evaluate prevention strategies.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/firarmsu.htm

[xebec 195]

One big glass of STFU coming up!

Fatal Firearm Injuries in the United States, 1962-1994

Violence Surveillance Summary Series, No. 3

Executive Summary

Death due to injuries from firearms is an increasingly important public health problem. As a group, injuries from firearms were the ninth leading cause of death overall in 1994 and the fourth leading cause of years of potential life lost before age 65 (NCIPC, unpublished data). During the 33-year period covered by this report, the total number of firearm deaths increased by 130%, from 16,720 in 1962 to 38,505 in 1994. If present trends continue, firearm-related injuries could become the leading cause of deaths attributed to injury by the year 2003, surpassing injuries due to motor vehicle crashes.

This report reviews the descriptive epidemiology of firearm-related mortality in the United States from 1962-1994. The patterns of overall firearm-related mortality and of homicide, suicide, unintentional death, deaths occurring during legal intervention, and deaths of undetermined intent are examined by race, sex, and age group.

Throughout the 33-year period, suicide and homicide were responsible for most firearm fatalities; they accounted for 94% of the total in 1994. The fluctuations and overall increase in rates of total firearm-related mortality most closely resembled the pattern of firearm-related homicide. Although suicide rates were high and gradually increasing over time, they varied less than homicide rates. The rates for unintentional death from firearms, deaths during legal intervention, and deaths of undetermined intent were low and generally declined over the study period.

Firearm-related mortality affects all demographic groups, but the greatest increases in recent years were among teens 15-19 years of age, young adults aged 20-24, and older adults aged 75 and older. The rates of overall firearm-related mortality for young people aged 15-24 were higher from 1990-1994 than at any other time during the 33-year period. For those 15-19, increases in firearm-related homicide, suicide, and unintentional injury deaths were especially great. The increase in firearm-related homicide in this age group occurred among all race-sex groups. For America's elderly, rates of suicide by firearm were particularly high, and increases occurred in all race-sex groups except black females, for whom the number of suicides were too small to produce stable rates. The surveillance data in this report are intended to familiarize public health practitioners, researchers, and policymakers with the problem of firearm-related deaths in this country. While these data help characterize the magnitude of the problem and identify groups at risk, there are still gaps in our knowledge. Current surveillance efforts need to be expanded to include information about nonfatal injuries. We also need a greater understanding of the causes of firearm deaths to identify modifiable individual and societal risk factors. Finally, further research is required to plan, develop, and evaluate prevention strategies.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/firarmsu.htm

Good for you, R4O! I think this is the first attempt at a substantive post I have ever seen from you!

Moreover, your article may very well open "One big glass of STFU" on fancypants and the other hoplophobes.....bravo sir... well-played! You have demonstrated that:

1) Most firearms related deaths are either:

a) Homicides, which have little to do with legal carry (other than making our choice to carry all the more sensible). Criminal gun violence is here to stay.....check.

b) Suicides, which can and are committed but any of hundreds of different methods. Firearms not required. Firearm availability, or lack thereof won't stop suicides. Good point R4O...

2) "The rates for unintentional death from firearms, deaths during legal intervention, and deaths of undetermined intent were low and generally declined over the study period." So, the relevant data relating to legally owned and carried firearms shows us that we are moving in the right direction- relatively low numbers of accidents, and "legal interventions"- clearly the growing numbers of guns, favorable second amendment rulings, increasing favorable carry laws, and growing numbers of high-quality training venues for civilian firearm owners are helping to send these numbers down.

Great post R4O!

Oh......edited to add- I gave you a +1

Edited May 5, 2012 by xebec