[Lew Rodd]

I asked the question' American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)
and this is only CHILDREN. Is this the price we must pay to live in a FREE country?
Reading the replies I received, it seems to me, we have less deaths from guns than the rest of the world put together, even though we have a population only 5 times bigger than GB, France or Germany, and 10 times bigger than Canada, the numbers do not add up, to have the same ratio as Canada we would need to be 32 times bigger, 46 times bigger than France,
and 89 times bigger than Germany, (we will leave out GB completely) even if the numbers of dead are wrong by 50%, you can see the numbers are crazy, if safety was measured by the number of guns in a country, the US would be the safest place on earth to live, but we all know that's not true.

[bdutton]

The CDC groups 'children' as an age group up to age 20.

A majority of handgun CRIME is comitted by 15-25 year old 'children'.

Accidental deaths per capita have been at an all time low since the tracking of accidents in 1903.

Guns are not the 'cause' of death. The illegal use of guns are.

[R.W.Dale]

firearms killed no children in Japan

And it's the exact same number here. NOBODY has ever been killed BY a firearm, But lot's of people have been killed WITH a firearm.

HUGE DIFFRENCE. Come on is it, really any better to be gutted like a fish with a kitchen knife.

[Mannlicher]

a troll indeed, bdutton.
Second post, and postulates something like this.
Hey Rodd, go peddle your garbage somewhere else.:mad:

[Justin]

If you think he's a troll, don't respond. If he's become uncivil, then let a moderator know.

Geeze.

[Firehand]

As I recall, in the listing of developed nations, the U.S. is a fair ways down on the list for violent crimes. Among those above us are Scotland, England and some other countries with gun ownership laws ranging from very strict to prohibitive. As history shows, beating on objects does not make you safer.

And if I remember right, the CDC figures were messed with to get that number by including(among others) gangbangers killing each other, suicides and people up to 22 or 23years old.

Your post comes across as someone throwing out VPC and Brady talking points. Where did your numbers on other countries come from?

[Creeping Incrementalism]

http://www.salagir.com/gfx/troll-bg.jpg

(Just in case: For those of you who haven't heard this line of argument before, the "children" being killed are 17 year-old gang bangers offing each other over drugs. If you take, say, people under the age of ten, you will find the riding bicycles and drowning in pools is more lethal.)

[fletcher]

if safety was measured by the number of guns in a country, the US would be the safest place on earth to live, but we all know that's not true.

Anyone with sense knows that it isn't. The quantity of firearms in a location will undeniably have some effect on the safety, but it can not be defined by a simple direct or inverse correlation.


Also, can you please work on your punctuation and such in these posts? I'm having a rather hard time trying to make out what you're saying.

[GunFixer]

I wonder how many people (not children) are killed in other countries in Africa and the Middle East by AK47's? Lets compare those numbers to the United states. Lets not forget about the suicide bombers.

I am a law abiding gun owner and my guns have never killed anyone or better yet, like krochus says, no one has ever been killed WITH one of my guns. Its the drug dealing, gang banging, rapist, scum bags that our legal system seems to want to protect, while continually tigheting the noose on the law abiding citizen.

I don't think that we have a gun problem in this country, I think that we have a people problem. If all of a sudden guns were magically whisked into non-existence...I think that a huge baseball bat or a knife problem would surface in this country.

[armoredman]

And these mean...

[griz]

A total of two posts on the exact same subject? I started to report it then realized it isn't offensive. It's just...well, trollish.

[Stickjockey]

Pay particular attention to where Switzerland is on that chart. Remember, there's an automatic rifle in just about every hall closet.

[220_Swift]

If you take, say, people under the age of ten, you will find the riding bicycles and drowning in pools is more lethal.)


Only if you use common sense, and think for yourself. People like this are brainwashed, and believe anything they are told. You would have better luck trying to teach my dog spanish than getting people like this to understand the truth.


Here is a link for the true child mortality rates for 2002.

http://www.childdeathreview.org/nationalchildmortalitydata.htm

[Harry Tuttle]

mull upon this

in the wisqars system you can query for causes of fatal injury due to guns
http://www.cdc.gov/NCIPC/wisqars/

2003 Population 290,810,789

2003, United States
Firearm Deaths
All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages

Number of
Deaths
30,136

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

2003, United States
Violence-Related Firearm Deaths
(suicide, homicide and Legal intervention)
All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages

Number of
Deaths
29,174

so say its on average 30,000 people die from guns per year due to intentional violence

how many of those people are killed by the police?

2003, United States
Legal Intervention Firearm Deaths
All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
ICD-10 Codes: Y35.0

Number of
Deaths
347

isn't that rather low?

mayhaps, when the police report perforating a perpetrator
they mark it down as the perpetrators "fault"

>>>>>>>>>

how many are suicides?

2003, United States
Suicide Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
ICD-10 Codes: X72-X74

Number of
Deaths
16,907

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

so how many people are unintentionally "accidentally" shot?

2003, United States
Unintentional Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages

Number of
Deaths
730

who are the 730?

the majority fall in a band of 14-30 year olds

2003, United States
Unintentional Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, Ages 10 to 29

Age Group Number of Deaths

10-14 36
15-19 95
20-24 105
25-29 74

Total 310

2003, United States
Unintentional Firearm Deaths
All Races, Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 9

Total 20

there are your unintentional tragic children that died from firearms in 2003

meanwhile:
2003, United States
Unintentional Injury Deaths
All Races, Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 9

Total 3,758

[1 old 0311]

This was NOT posed as a question. He posted the SAME thing yesterday. Lou "Sara Brady" Rodd is not looking for a debate. He is looking for a soap box. PLEASE don't give it to him.

Kevin

[AndyC]

I don't think that we have a gun problem in this country, I think that we have a people problem. If all of a sudden guns were magically whisked into non-existence...I think that a huge baseball bat or a knife problem would surface in this country.
+1 - see Britain:

http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/8894/knives5cv.jpg

So...what comes after the knife ban? The half-brick ban? Hey, Mr Politician, here's a gentle hint because you obviously need some help - try going after the C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L-S themselves, not just the tools that law-abiding people legally use as well.

[Firehand]

Kevin's right, didn't think to check his name before I posted an answer

[jlbraun]

Myth: 13 children are killed each day by guns

Fact: Adults included – This “statistic” includes “children” up to age 19 or 24,
depending on the source. Since most violent crime is committed by males ages 16-24,
these numbers include adult gang members dying during criminal activity[99]
(incidentally, ‘child’ is defined by Webster as a person between birth and puberty,
typically 13-14 years).

Fact: Criminals are included - 70% of these deaths are adults, age 17-20, involved in
gang warfare. Half of the juveniles killed are involved in gang activity at the time of their
deaths, often involved in drug
related firefights.

Fact: Suicides and criminals
included - These numbers
include criminal activities and
suicides.[100] As suicides make up
more than ½ of all gun deaths,
the number drops even further,
to about 1.3 children a day. [101]
Fact: The federal government
lists the total firearm related
deaths for children were 612, or
1.7 per day, in 1998. 154 were
suicides[102]

Does this adequately answer your question?

[Lew Rodd]

That is the truth, it is not the guns, it's the people.
But I think there's one thing we can all agree on, if one person buys a gun, it is better for everyone if we all have one, in the hope they will cancel each other out, a bit like nuclear bombs, if you fire at me, I will fire at you, and it has been going on for so long now, it will never end.
We could not possibly get rid of all the guns in this country even if the desire was there.
Forget the statistics, even if half the population killed the other half.
Americans are in love with guns, using them or watching them being used, period.

[dev_null]

Are you here to learn, or to preach? If the former, take the time to read over the replies you've received. If the latter, take it elsewhere.

[CB1961]

People and children are killed in accidents and unfortunately on purpose everyday, by all types of weapons, and some non weapons. One child killed recently with a golf club - psycho father. I'll take my chances with the gun laws we already have, don't think it needs to get more restrictive, just need to educate people better, have better family values, more good mature social interaction for and with our children. I grew up in the mid-west in a small town and about everyone had guns hanging on the wall or standing in the hall or in the closet, in the pick-up truck. I had a gun when I was 8 years old, and funny enough don't remember any of us shooting one another...ever...so what has happened in the past 40 years or so? Must be something in the water as they say. Some people are just not ever going to accept anyone owning a gun, they will find something to make it all look like the end of the world and blame it on the guns....well I think IMHO that people have gone nuttier than squirrels and it doesn't have anything to do with guns either. We'll be banning baseball bats one of these days if we get on the slippery slope of blaming objects for the stupidity and insanity of people.

[JohnBT]

"Forget the statistics, even if half the population killed the other half.
Americans are in love with guns, using them or watching them being used, period."

You just don't get it. You think you get it, but you're barking up the wrong tree.

Now, if you'd come here asking for information, or guidance, or an opinion, or anything halfway reasonable I'd be inclined to discuss the deeper meanings of American gun ownership as I see it after 50 years of personal experience. I'd tell you what it means to my 84-year-old father who served in WWII in 13th Jungle Air Force the Pacific and then as a State Trooper. I'd tell you what it meant to my grandfather who was born 25 years after the Civil War. I'd tell you the third-, fourth-, and fifth-hand stories of what it meant to my blood relatives who fought in the Revolutionary War after clawing their way out of Scotland, Ireland and Wales and carving out a new life in the forests of Virginia.

But you came here with a chip on your shoulder spouting cut-and-paste soundbites and I don't have time for the likes of you.

John

[PaladinX13]

That is the truth, it is not the guns, it's the people.

What took you so long to figure this out?

But I think there's one thing we can all agree on, if one person buys a gun, it is better for everyone if we all have oneNo, this isn't agreed upon, which is one of the reasons most (clearly not all, though) people support the idea that felons should not have the right to firearms.

in the hope they will cancel each other out, a bit like nuclear bombs, if you fire at me, I will fire at you, and it has been going on for so long now, it will never end.By that logic, we should have wiped ourselves out via the Cold War a long time ago. Isn't it more likely an armed society is a polite society?

Forget the statisticsWhy? You've mentioned the same statistics twice- the whole substance of your argument- then when those numbers are broken down (proven as suicides and violent crime) you want to stop using them?

Americans are in love with guns, using them or watching them being used, period.So? Guns aren't inherently evil so saying that is like saying men are in love with women. Long before the stats you cited, the same was true but the crime was down. As late as the early 70s a highschooler could walk around NYC with a rifle on his back, onto the subway and to school where his coach would take his rifle for shooting club after-school. A little earlier back a teen could buy guns at gas stations, grocery, or by mail order catalog. By your logic, that level of freedom would have made the streets run red with blood. They didn't.

Maybe you should focus on a root cause rather than a "symptom" (it's arguable without guns things would be even worse).

[hso]

Lew Rodd,

You've based some of your negative opinions on false information.

The actualy currently available statistics from the CDC for accidental gunshot deaths for 0-9 year olds is clear for 2003, only 20 accidental deaths out of 300,000,000. Thats an accidental death rate of 20/300,000,000 or normalized per 100,000 of 0.0066 accidental deaths for 0-9 year olds/100,000 population. This is minscule and is so small as to be statistically unstable. Also, it is a trivial number from a public health standpoint and demonstrates that children are not at any credible risk from firearms while drowning was a much greater likelyhood by better than a factor of 100.

Remember that we all have opinions about serious issues, but the reality lies in the numbers.

Please respond to this statistic.

[Justin]

The next person to make accusations of trolling will have their account locked.

Capiche?

[Red State]

I have always wondered how to spell capiche.

I was way off! Kapeesh. Capish.

[Frohickey]

You are approaching the gun issue through the misuse of guns (accidental shooting, crime), while the majority of us here are approaching the gun issue through the practical necessity of gun (for self defense, for hunting, to preserve freedom).

I think that guns are necessary, and the inappropriate use of guns (accidental shootings and crime) can be minimized or perhaps even eliminated through education, training, law enforcement, and swift punishment.

If children from kindergarden to high school were exposed to the correct and safe use of firearms, a substantial amount of the accidental shootings would never happen. Then, you would be just left with the criminal use of guns.

Now, how do you propose eliminating crime? Do you propose eliminating the opportunity and liberties that law-abiding people enjoy because the same opportunity and liberties could be used by criminals to commit their crimes? I think that we should eliminate criminals instead.

What do you think?

[Justin]

I have always wondered how to spell capiche.

I was way off! Kapeesh. Capish.

Actually, I had to go look it up in The Wiktionary. (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/capiche) :)

Anyway, back to the topic at hand.

[thumbody]

Lew, lets take a look at the wonderful world with no guns ,OK
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml
Yep thats the answer to make the world less violent, take away the means of defense of the innocent.

[sm]

Lew Rodd,

I posted some links in your first thread. I did that for a number of reasons:

-Your benefit.

-Benefit of new members of how THR conducts a civil discussion on subjects that often Responsible Firearm Owners are accused of being uneducated knuckle-draggers when confronted with and discussing.

Take note of the Documented Cites from those links and from posters in the original thread.

-I KNOW THR and TFL are is essence Global Libraries. We have Folks from all over the world that read THR and TFL.

~ Some are Responsible Firearm Owners
~ Some are Fence Sitters reading to learn.
~ Some are TYRANNY trying to find anything to use against Responsible Firearm Owners and to persuade Fence Sitters.

WE cannot change the Thinking of Tyranny and Anti-Gun folks - that easy, some are too far gone. Still they read to find anything to use against us, anything to skew.

Tyranny, Brady, Rebecca Peters...et al. - WE know whom you are, we know you read THR and TFL. We are watching you in more ways than you are us - including reading these forums.

Fence sitters - Please read and use the cites provided in a civil manner by THR and TFL and our Sister Sites - to make an informed decison. These cites we URGE you to investigate for yourselves. WE will earn your trust honestly - and not post false information - that is what Tyranny does.

See threads like this are viewable by all. These threads get hits from search engines all over the world. One never knows what a thread, or post will / has done for Freedom and Responsible Firearm Owners.

WE have members that were once Anti-Gun, Some were fence sitters.

They investigated cites for themselves, and made their choices accordingly.

Do a search for Susan Gratia -Hupp any of you lurkers out there, be you - for us, against us - or not sure yet.


Steve

[Phetro]

I asked the question' American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)
and this is only CHILDREN. Is this the price we must pay to live in a FREE country?

Your statistic of 5,285 is incorrect. It was deliberately calculated to include gang members and other "children" under age 21.

But the real point is your question: "Is this the price we must pay to live in a FREE country?" The answer is: No matter how high the price of freedom, consider it cheap. Whether 5 children, 5,000, or fifty million die each year, there is nothing in this world more important than liberty.

[Offwhite]

It seems like there has been a steady stream of trolls/anti's coming on just to get everyone worked up. If you want to bash firearms go to another forum please...

you see even "gun nuts" can be polite & civil :evil:

[Vex]

Lew Rodd,

Alright, first off, lets clear up some of you un-referenced statistics. All of my statistics will be from the 2003 year, and all information will be referenced with links so you can see for yourself the information.

First off, your statistics. You state there are 5,285 children killed in the USA by firearms, no referenced year given. Well, how do you classify children? Here are the statistics I found: (pdf, 1MB) ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/ncipc/10LC-2003/PDF/10lc-violence.pdf

Ages 5-9, Homicides with firearms: 48 (this was the 5th leading cause of death, the first being motorvehicle/traffic, followed by unintentional burning, drowning, and "other/land transport")

Ages 10-14, Homicides with firearms: 139 (this was the 4th leading cause of death. The leaders, in order, are motorvehicle/traffic, suicide by suffocation, and unintentional drowning)

Ages 15-24, Homicides with firearms: 4,410 (this jumped up to number 2, being beaten out only by Unintentional motorvehicle/traffic with 10,736)

Ages 25-34, Homicides with firearms: 3,540 (again number 2, with Unintentional motorvehcle/traffic at 6,675)


So what can we discern from this data? Well, "child" is defined on dictionary.com as "A person between birth and puberty." Seriously, here is the link: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=child And yet again, and been itterated so many times: if motorvehicle/traffic accidents are the leading cause in every age group, why aren't you people trying to ban cars?

So, what year is puberty? Most will agree it's somewhere around 13 to 14 years old. So, based on the definition of "child" and the statistics I linked from the CDC, we conclude that during the 2003 school year, there were 187 (48 + 139) children killed in homicides by firearms during 2003.

How does this compare to the other countries you stated?

...19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada...

How do we compare with those of our neighbor Canada, which has very strict gun control laws?

Population of USA: 295, 724, 134
Homicide of person ages 5-14 with firearm: 1 per 1,581,465

Population of Canada: 32, 538, 804
Homicide of "child" with firearm: 1 per 212,671

Now, note that since you didn't give an age group or a year, I had to list the Canadian ratio of homicides as those of "children." But the data speaks for itself.... a child is 6 times more likely to be killed in Canada with a gun than in the USA. How do you explain this?

And Germany?

Population of Germany: 82, 431, 390
Homicide of "child" with firearm: 1 per 1,446,164

So now we're nearly on par with Germany, but the ratio is bigger for Germany. You're more likely to be killed in Germany with a firearm than in the USA.

And what about the very liberal (and quite traiterous) France?
Population of France: 60, 656, 178
Homicide of "child" with firearm: 1 per 556, 478

Now we conclude that in France, a "child" is 3 times more likely to be killed with a firearm than in the USA. How do you explain THIS?

Now, I will concede that in Great Britain, the ratio is lower....
Population of Great Britain: 60, 441, 457
Homicide of "child" with firearm: 3,181,129

So you're 2 times more likely to have a "child" killed in the USA than in Great Britain. I wonder what their other statistics are? They have more beatings, robberies, and whats more, I found information pointing out that there are more replica guns used in crimes than real guns.... to the tune of 8 to 1. How is someone just going to walk into a bank or somewhere with a replica gun and rob someone? I'll tell ya: There's no chance of self-defense by the victim! They're creating a culture of victims.... of sheep... they might as well just lay down and let the entire island become run by organized crime.

The meaning for this information is to show you that, even though there is a problem with gun-homicides of children in the USA, it's not nearly as great as it is in Canada.

My theory? Firearms training. Since we have access to many different types of firearms, and it's been a definitive part of our culture since the inception of this great country, we've taught and passed down the safe and proper handling of firearms. Look into this more, and you will see the majority of firearms deaths, both homicides and accidental, are from the inner city, where hunting, target shooting, and safe firearms handling isn't part of the culture. My advice to you is to get your liberal friends, make friends with people who are willing to go into the inner city schools and teach firearms handling, and teach people how to avoid accidents. Remove the gangs, educate the utterly impaired and negligent parents, and turn these inner city children into adults. Don't punish the entire country because of the acts of a few irresponsible criminals.

Something else I want to point out, while i'm on a spree: The unemployment rate in Cadana is 6.4%. In the USA it's only 4.7%, even though our population is more than 9 times bigger. Do me a favor.... take this information back to your liberal cronies and let them know the condition of the economy isn't as bad as they want us to believe.

[Molon Labe]

Yes, it is sad so many people are killed using guns. And yes, some of them are children. But you know what? I would rather have the crime rate stay exactly where it is than give up my right to keep and bear arms.

[Harry Tuttle]

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=40395&stc=1&d=1148510572
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html

[Hawkmoon]

"Figures never lie, but liars often figure."

*** (My late grandmother)

((I am referring way back to the original figures cited, not to the chart directly preceding this post, BTW))

[Princecookie]

Justin, I'm new to this forum and I don't understand what you mean by trolling. Could you explain. Thanks

[rbernie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

[JohnBT]

"I am referring way back to the original figures cited"

We knew that.

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics" - variously attributed to Mark Twain, Benjamin Disraeli and others.

John

[Larry Ashcraft]

Lew Rodd, I happen to completely agree with you...

On one point...

I have obviously got it completely wrong.

Yes, you do.

Carefully read the above posts. Follow the links. We have some very intelligent people on here. Pay attention to them. Try to learn instead of believing dogma and the media.

Its a whole different world out there than what you have been led to believe.

[Roadkill]

Hey Lew, this Bud's for you: If you notice a dude in a clinical jacket staring at you he's probably a proctologist.

Child Passenger Deaths Involving Drinking Drivers – Study - USA
Main Category: Alcohol / Addiction / Illegal Drugs News
Article Date: 06 Feb 2004 - 0:00am (PDT)

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children ages one year or older, and one in four of these crash deaths involves a driver who has consumed alcohol.

This study also found that 68 percent of children killed in alcohol-related crashes in the United States between 1997 and 2002 were riding in the same vehicle as the drinking driver.

Sixty-eight percent of the drinking drivers involved in these crashes survived, suggesting that many of the children might also have survived had they been properly restrained.

Additional key findings include:

-- A total of 2,335 (24 percent) of the 9, 622 child passengers who died in crashes from 1997 to 2002 involved drinking drivers.

The Kennedys are a bigger threat to society than Winchester firearms.

rk

[Mortech]

Can we at least use the term 'Underbridge Gnome' ??? :rolleyes:

[armedandsafe]

At the risk of getting locked, I will say that I love trolls. They bring out a wide variety of well researched facts which would be difficult to locate on one's own hook. I learn as much from these threads as from all the others combined, I think. :neener: :D

Pops

[mnrivrat]

That is the truth, it is not the guns, it's the people.

Thank You : Because you should then realize I mean you no harm and me simply being a gun owner is not cause for concern !

But I think there's one thing we can all agree on, if one person buys a gun, it is better for everyone if we all have one, in the hope they will cancel each other out, a bit like nuclear bombs, if you fire at me, I will fire at you, and it has been going on for so long now, it will never end.

Well this is partly true , and you could say the same thing about a rock or a stick when it comes to self defense issues. Unfortunatly mankind does have its share of animals that will prey on those who can't defend themselves. It's each persons choice wether to match the ability of these preditors or to go down like sheep. Firearm ownership however is more than just about self defense. There is still the other major uses in the shooting sports. Some like to gulf for sport, some like to shoot .

We could not possibly get rid of all the guns in this country even if the desire was there.

Very true , and that should be well understood by looking at things like the so called war on drugs. There are always going to be people who will not follow the law - do you realy want just those who would be criminals to have firearms ? Remember the preditor thing ?

Forget the statistics, even if half the population killed the other half.
Americans are in love with guns, using them or watching them being used, period.

I at least agree with you in part here - the part about forgeting the statistics anyway. My statistics professor started my first day in class with this statement : " There are lies, then there are big lies, and then there are statistics " You can only draw proper conclusions from a set of numbers if you do proper gathering of the numbers and analysis based on the parameters established to gather them. People with an agenda who have already drawn a conclusion can always set the parameters of the numbers gathered to reach that conclusion.

Hard to say wether your correct when you say that Americans are in love with guns. I tend to believe this is a speculation rather than a fact and I don't think you are alone in America with your anti-firearm views. There are a lot of people working very hard to strip the right to keep and bear arms away from those who do believe in the right and yes need to be armed.

I recognize that many are well intended . Believing this country would be better off without firearms and that banning them would save lives . To them I say study history and recognize that disarming good law abiding people is not the answer to being safe - it is the doorway to servitude.

[akodo]

Lew,

I have a hard time understanding what you are saying in your posts. Are you a native english speaker? Please take a bit more time to compose or edit what you write. I don't want to come off as a grammar nazi, my own writing is far from perfect, but yours is at the point where there is a failure to communicate, at least with me. This may also be due to the use of sarcasm. Remember, sarcasm does not translate well on the internet, and in a messy sentence to beginwith, I find it get lost entirely.


That said, there are a few problems with your info.

There are more developed countries than you include statistics for. Out of say 50 countries, you compare gun rates for just 5. Why these 5? Why don't you include countries like switzerland with extremely high gun access but low child death?

You can make anything you want sound good by picking data.

A good example showing how complex the gun-crime-death-accident issue is can be illustrated by some examples of US states.

Hawaii has the harshest gun laws of any US state, and has the lowest per capita instances of accidental gun death, gun crime, etc etc. Yet the area thast has even harsher gun laws, Washington DC, has higher gun crime and gun death figures than any other state. Clearly just gun regs don't impact gun crime figures.

You would be correct in pointing out that Hawaii is an island, it is hard to get illegal guns in, whereas DC you can drive guns into it from places where it is easier to get guns. Then take a look at Montana and Alaska, they are the 2nd and 3rd lowest per capita in those very same gun crime and gun accident catagories yet they are both known for having very few gun restriction laws, plus they are just as easy to smuggle guns into as DC is.

Guns and how they relate to crime and accident is a very complex issue. What it boils down to for me is two things. #1, I have no (or very little) control on how a gun is used against me to do violence, but I have total control on how a gun I use posess is used either for voilence or accident. (Hence I can ignore statments like 'you are more likely to accidentally kill a loved one than an intruder with your gun' because I will NOT accidentally kill a loved one due to choices I make) #2, even if the stat were true, and it would be safer to not have a gun than to have a gun, It's an issue of persona freedom. It is not the state's right to decide what hobbies and activities of mine are too risky. It is my right.

[BHPshooter]

if safety was measured by the number of guns in a country, the US would be the safest place on earth to live, but we all know that's not true.

You may not know it, but you couldn't be further from the truth.

Are you familiar with Isoroku Yamamoto? He's the Japanese Commander who planned the attack at Pearl Harbor.

At the time that he was charged with attacking America, the Japanese misconception of Americans was that we were a lazy people, concerned only with making ourselves as comfortable as possible. Yamamoto, who was educated in America, told them that this was quite untrue. Now, you probably already know about how he planned the attack, but warned that they were going to "awaken a sleeping giant."

What you probably don't know is that they initially wanted to invade America. Yamamoto told them that an invasion of America was impossible, because "there is a gun behind every blade of grass."

The simple fact that America has guns -- a LOT of guns -- has saved us from terrible things.

Another historical point to keep in mind: At the time of the American Revolution, Jimbob Farmer was better armed than a British Regular.

The British, with their smoothbore "Brown Bess" musket, could only expect mediocre accuracy, and they generally achieved effectiveness only through the rules of engagement at the time (meaning Group A lines up across a field from Group B).

But American farmers and frontiersmen, with their rifled Pennsylvania or Kentucky rifles (among others), could shoot accurately and effectively much farther than the Redcoats could. This was arguably the birth of (effective) Guerilla Warfare.

And here's the kicker: The mess all started at Concord and Lexington when the British showed up to confiscate their guns, powder, and shot.

That's enough food for thought to comprise a whole meal. :)

Wes