No solution in sight for U.S. gun violence-It's an American way of death.

No solution in sight for U.S. gun violence

By Bernd Debusmann, Special Correspondent Mon Oct 23, 7:48 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - It's an American way of death. More than 30,000 people die from gunshot wounds every year, through murder, suicide and accidents.


That is an average of 82 a day, and prospects for reducing the toll are dim.

The debate between gun control advocates and the pro-gun lobby was reignited briefly this month by four school shootings between September 26 and October 9.

In one, a man carrying a pistol, a shotgun and 600 rounds of ammunition shot 10 girls execution-style at an Amish school in Pennsylvania, killing five of them, and then killed himself. In another, a 13-year-old took an AK-47 assault rifle to his school in Missouri, pointed it at administrators and other students and fired it into a ceiling.

At a hastily arranged White House Conference on School Safety on October 10, panelists covered topics ranging from metal detectors and school bullies to the value of religious beliefs and good communication between parents and schools.

But the word "gun" was not mentioned until a plucky teenager pointed out to a panel moderated by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that the common factor was easy access to high-powered firearms.


........http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061023/pl_nm/life_guns_dc

huh

You want to own a gun so you can kill someone, vote republican

:sarcasm:

The Democrats need to get rid of this albatross issue

It is why Al Gore, lost Tennessee and Arkansas in 2000

We haven't heard anything about this for two years

somebody's trying to revive the "Dems'll take yer guns" meme as the election approaches, by trotting out the old "assault weapon" bait-and-switch...

Unfortunately the rest of the country will and does.

And since we have an "ELECTORAL COLLEGE" I think it is an albatross issue.

Truly.

The recent school shooting fatalities were carried out by a 9mm pistol (not high powered) and some hunting shotguns; the murderer in the Amish school shootings also carried, but apparently did not use, a hunting rifle. I wonder if the writer is proposing to outlaw hunting shotguns?

FWIW, that kid in Missouri didn't have an "AK-47 assault rifle," just a non-automatic civilian lookalike (Norinco MAK-90, I think), that was NOT affected by the 1994 Feinstein ban. Possession of an actual AK-47 assault rifle without government permission (BATFE Form 4) is already a 10-year Federal felony, and always has been.

Methinks someone is trying to kick-start the ban-more-guns crusade just in time for the November elections...

pnly for low powered guns.

...Nerf ammo to wage a successful insurgency in my community.:hi:

the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Toys

As a nation we are arrogant, intolerant, petty, demoralizing and with a belief in winning at all costs. Now were surprised our kids are the same way. Installing all the highest tech equipment in the world, isn't going to make us any safer than Israel, it's only going to up the ante. Instead of gun violence we could just as easily see suicide bombers in this country. There are so many people
involved in violent crimes that exhibited behavior problems that should have been red flags to underlying issues that went ignored. Punishment alone isn't going to do much for a person, who doesn't understand why they acted out in the first place.

Congress allowed a ban on assault weapons -- such as the AK47 used in the Missouri school shooting -- to lapse.

No, the MAK-90 used in the Missouri water-pipe shooting was not covered by the expired federal AW ban. In fact, the existence of ban-compliant knockoffs like tha MAK-90 was a direct result, albeit unintended, of the ban.

This is just another rant about "easy access" to firearms without a hint of what might be done about it. Sure, I have easy access to the firearms I keep locked up in my safe. What would the authors, or gun control supporters in general, do about it without alienating the large majority of peaceful, non-violent gun owners like me?

Flame away. You know I'm right.

and between a quarter and a third of registered Dems and indies personally own a firearm, further restrictions on gun access by the law-abiding are NOT on the table.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1689245

The 1994 Feinstein law--which merely raised the price on replacement magazines for popular civilian handguns, required new civilian rifles to have non-adjustable stocks and non-removable muzzle brakes, and restricted the use of 19 military-sounding names--arguably cost Dems the House ('94), the Senate, and two presidencies ('00 and '04). Care to speculate on the political cost of an actual ban on popular civilian firearms?

My wife and I own guns, lawfully and responsibly. We will keep them, thanks.

I said this very same thing to a fundie who tried to tell me "hillary wants to take all our guns away". I said "bullshit. Over half the Liberals I know own guns, and we have a right to bear arms. This is a non-issue for us. the only ones saying that are those noobs you listen to on the radio."

:evilgrin:

weapons?

Why do gun owners get their panties in a twist when gun control is mentioned? It's such a knee-jerk reaction.

but I think you may be confused about automatic weapons. Possession of any automatic weapon without Federal permission (BATFE Form 4) is a 10-year Federal felony, unless you are military or law enforcement. Private citizens can get permission to own one, but it is a long and involved process, and you'd better be wealthy (a civilian-transferable NFA Title 2 AK-47 costs upwards of $15,000, since there are so few of them).

If you are talking about NON-automatic civilian guns that the Bradyites term "assault weapons," you are talking about maybe 20% to 40% of the guns Americans own. (The ban-guns lobby defines an "assault weapon" as any civilian gun holding more than 6 or 10 rounds, civilian rifles and shotguns with modern-looking stock shapes, etc.)

Even if you despise guns, I think you'd benefit from the following explanation of the issue:

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (DU thread)

this one issue that most members of this board won't understand.

But the NRA and it's many sheep keep pretending we already did.

and nail, by saying that we need to enforce the laws already on the books, that they fought tooth and nail ... and around and around and around and around.

what we oppose is further restrictions on the right of the law-abiding to own non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed civilian firearms under .51 caliber that meet the other requirements of the National Firearms Act.

That is a LONG way from "fighting every gun control law." I don't speak for the NRA, but I know the NRA supports the National Firearms Act of 1934 (which controls automatic weapons, sound-suppressed firearms, and guns over .50 caliber), most of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the NICS point of sale background check, and helped write the 1986 ban on armor-piercing handgun bullets and the ban on guns undetectable by X-ray, for example.

What they oppose--and rightly so--is the current attempt by the ban-more-guns lobby to outlaw everything but hunting-style guns, when only 1 in 5 gun owners is a hunter.

Flame away. You know I'm right.

I'll reserve judgement on that until you demonstrate some knowledge of what kinds of gun control we presently have in place.

but the British have (about 30 years worth if I recall correctly), and where are they now... oh, that's right... gun violence is up as compared to pre-ban levels, as is violence using everything from knives to rocks. I've even heard a rumor that they are looking at banning all knives over a certain size because of the incidence of assaults with kitchen and carving knives.

If we ban firearms, gun violence may decrease, but the history we've seen so far in countries with strict controls and similar attitudes to our society's vierw doesn't suggest it will. Furthermore, when guns are unavailable legally, other forms of assaults with dangerous implements tend to increase. I'd rather have a change to more tolerance in our society generally instead. Firearms are not the cause of the violence, merely the method used.

What are their gun kill numbers and gun ownership numbers per capita?

Here's some facts for you:

"Violence", says H. Rap Brown, is not "as American as cherry pie," but American violence does tend to end in death. The reason, plain and simple, is guns. We own more guns per capita than any other high-income country—maybe even more than one gun for every man, woman, and child in the country. A 1994 survey numbered the U.S. gun supply at more than 200 million in a population then numbered at 262 million, and currently about 35 percent of American households have guns.

http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/090433.html

"Great Britain, for example, banned all handguns in 1997 when 16 children and their teacher were killed in a primary school gun massacre in Dublane, Scotland. The county's gun-related offenses fell by 21% following ban.

Meanwhile, in the United States, approximately 5,000 children under 15 years of age are killed every year in America due to guns (not to mention the many more children who are permanently disabled). Unfortunately, our gun culture and the powerful gun lobby has not permitted our government to invoke tougher gun laws.

In the populous country of Japan, the number of children killed by guns hovers at around ZERO. In fact, our 5,000 children killed every year number more than all of the child gun-related deaths of all the industrial nations combined..."

http://www.psrla.org/program_gun_violence.htm

Source: http://timlambert.org/2002/10/malcolm/

Meanwhile, in the United States, approximately 5,000 children under 15 years of age are killed every year in America due to guns...

That is not correct, Lindacooks. In 2003 only 380 children under 14 died from gunshot in the USA.

Query your own statistics at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/

... strict alcohol control, strict drug control and IT DOESN'T WORK.

We live in the world that is, not a fantasyland. No law anyone could ever pass would stop criminals from having guns, and THAT IS A FACT whether you like it or not.

Look at the laws in Japan and England. They DO work.

If you think that gun violence is the same thing as drinking and using drugs, then there's no reasoning with you.

Neither England nor Japan ever had much of a problem with gun-related crime, compared with the USA.

The homicide rate in England declined after gun control was introduced in 1920, though this could have been the continuation of a long term trend. The rate increased again after 1970 and is now almost as high as is was in the 1880s.

Compare 1910-19 with 1920-1929 and the rate went down.
Compare 1910-19 with 1990-1993 and the rate went up.
Compare 1857-1919 with 1920-1993 and the rate went down.

Homicide rate per 100k, England/Wales, Home office data
(Technically this is the rate for "offences initially recorded as homicide")

1857 1.26
1858 1.58
1859 1.42
1860 1.44
1861 1.36
1862 1.62
1863 1.76
1864 1.67
1865 1.96
1866 1.82
1867 1.85
1868 1.71
1869 1.74
1870 1.43
1871 1.78
1872 1.7
1873 1.58
1874 1.69
1875 1.55
1876 1.63
1877 1.53
1878 1.65
1879 1.51
1880 1.52
1881 1.61
1882 1.57
1883 1.57
1884 1.57
1885 1.49
1886 1.56
1887 1.37
1888 1.43
1889 1.07
1890 1.17
1891 1.02
1892 1.08
1893 1.13
1894 1.02
1895 1.13
1896 1.08
1897 0.98
1898 1.04
1899 1.01
1900 0.97
1901 1.05
1902 1.0
1903 0.94
1904 0.94
1905 0.84
1906 0.77
1907 0.77
1908 0.92
1909 0.85
1910 0.81
1911 0.81
1912 0.86
1913 0.91
1914 0.73
1915 0.75
1916 0.69
1917 0.61
1918 0.54
1919 0.79
1920 0.83
1921 0.66
1922 0.64
1923 0.68
1924 0.71
1925 0.82
1926 0.76
1927 0.75
1928 0.72
1929 0.79
1930 0.75
1931 0.72
1932 0.72
1933 0.88
1934 0.86
1935 0.77
1936 0.88
1937 0.74
1938 0.74
1939 0.85
1940 0.7
1941 0.75
1942 0.96
1943 0.76
1944 0.84
1945 1.15
1946 0.81
1947 0.86
1948 0.78
1949 0.68
1950 0.79
1951 0.75
1952 0.91
1953 0.74
1954 0.7
1955 0.63
1956 0.7
1957 0.71
1958 0.58
1959 0.59
1960 0.62
1961 0.57
1962 0.64
1963 0.65
1964 0.63
1965 0.68
1966 0.76
1967 0.86
1968 0.86
1969 0.81
1970 0.81
1971 0.94
1972 0.98
1973 0.95
1974 1.22
1975 1.03
1976 1.15
1977 0.98
1978 1.09
1979 1.28
1980 1.26
1981 1.12
1982 1.25
1983 1.11
1984 1.24
1985 1.25
1986 1.33
1987 1.37
1988 1.29
1989 1.25
1990 1.32
1991 1.42
1992 1.37
1993 1.31

I suppose one might argue that the rates would be higher if not for England's strict gun control laws, but that puts you back into the realm of guessing.

For any given year, the homicide rate in the USA is about four times that of England. That ratio has held true since before either country had any gun control.

How about a compromise where anyone can have whatever weapon they wish in their home, but it must be behind lock and key when anyone other than the owner and spouse is in the house (other than an intruder of course). Defend your home all you want but don't take that weapon outside to the streets or you get charged with a felony and spend a good part of your life with Bubba and friends.

The facts are that street violence is a major cause of early death in our cities and the fact that we are still argueing about how to stop it just lets more of us die.

Who said America is a civilized nation?

In most jurisdictions, carrying a concealed gun without a license is already a felony, and most of the perpetrators of gun violence couldn't qualify for a carry license even if they felt the need for one. Of course, most of them can't legally touch a gun, or even a single round of ammunition, under the Gun Control Act of 1968.

FWIW, we keep our guns in a safe when we're not home or when they're not in use.

this is what we as a nation have defined as an acceptable level of firearm death. high levels of firearm violence built this nation -cleared the west of pesky natives, lumbering buffalo, wolves, coyotes, & grizzly.

whether we arrived at the current condition due to the NRA, gun manufacturers, or strict patriotic adherence to the constitution matters not. the cat is out of the bag, the guns are on the street, in our homes, concealed on our persons. guns are easy - just point & squeeze - as opposed to stabbing or bludgeoning. restricting bullets would be way easier than 'taking guns away'. then we could get back to old-fashioned killing.

"its WAY too late for gun control in the US" - steve earle.

Police search for clues in teen's shooting
By Jennifer Borrasso

SAGINAW (WJRT) - (10/23/06)--Police are searching for the killer of a 15-year-old Saginaw teen who was shot to death in broad daylight. The drive-by shooting happened Sunday afternoon on the 3000 Block of Grant Street ...

http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/story?section=local&id=4687874

Monday, October 23, 2006

.. Their bodies were found Oct. 13 in a grassy area off the highway in Port St. Lucie, Fla. Yessica was holding Luis Julian, 4, and Luis Damian, 3, as though trying to protect them.

Authorities have said the family died of multiple gunshot wounds and appeared to be lying down or kneeling when they were shot. The couple's vehicle was found abandoned 70 miles south of the murder scene in West Palm Beach ..

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,224059,00.html

Man gets death sentence for slaying Va. family:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15388654/


VIOLENCE is the problem, no matter what weapon is used.


edit: edited heading to make it clear I was referring to a separate case from the one posted by struggle4progress

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov.nyud.net:8090/bjs/homicide/weapage.gif

Note that guns account for more than half of the deaths in each group. As a general rule, it requires less exertion and less proximity to shoot somebody to death than to stab or bludgeon them. This presumably explains why, for example, one does not see many drive-by stabbings.

Regarding the graphs you reference, can you say that the murderers who used guns wouldn't have murdered if they didn't have a gun?

As a general rule, it requires less exertion and less proximity to shoot somebody to death than to stab or bludgeon them. This presumably explains why, for example, one does not see many drive-by stabbings.

Does it explain why we don't see drive-by bow-and-arrow attacks? If we ban or greatly control guns, and see an uptick in poison-dart homicide, will we ban those too? Knives reduce the exertion needed to kill. So they should go too?

You've made it clear you think guns are the problem. How would your gun control plan operate?

replace gun homicides when gun homicides become more inconvenient, do feel free to post it.

I cannot imagine how blow-guns or bows-and-arrows are convenient replacements for convenience store robbery (say) and would therefore expect blow-gun or bow-and-arrow felony homicides to remain at a low level. Similarly, for suicide purposes, blow-guns or bows-and-arrows seem unlikely choices. And I expect most people would rather take their chances against someone armed with a blow-gun than against someone armed with a hand-gun, since a blow-gun is ineffective at very close range and at distance.

Perhaps with a bit more thought you can figure out for yourself why drive-by bow-and-arrow attacks are uncommon and are likely to remain uncommon. But if you really need more ideas regarding that particular issue, let me know.

If you have evidence that blow-gun or bow-and-arrow homicides replace gun homicides when gun homicides become more inconvenient, do feel free to post it.


I was extending the logic you yourself used:
As a general rule, it requires less exertion and less proximity to shoot somebody to death than to stab or bludgeon them.

You seem to be saying that just because guns make it easier to kill, we should _____ them. I use the _____ because you still haven't said on this thread what exactly you want to do about all those horrible, nasty guns out there.


I cannot imagine how blow-guns or bows-and-arrows are convenient replacements for convenience store robbery (say) and would therefore expect blow-gun or bow-and-arrow felony homicides to remain at a low level. Similarly, for suicide purposes, blow-guns or bows-and-arrows seem unlikely choices. And I expect most people would rather take their chances against someone armed with a blow-gun than against someone armed with a hand-gun, since a blow-gun is ineffective at very close range and at distance.
They are not convenient replacements, but you can't be delusional enough to think that someone who wants to kill or to commit suicide won't find a replacement (or an actual gun, even with the strictest ban you can think of). I'm just pointing out that if you want to do something about guns just because they make it easier to kill, you probably ought to take a look at everything that makes it easier to kill, and consider that humans are clever critters capable of improvising. The firearm is just a tool. 99.9% of the time it's used, it is used responsibly. Infringing on the right of responsible people to use a tool just because some jackasses mis-use it is worse than trading liberty for safety, because you won't even get more safety out the deal.


THIS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
is the logical extension of your argument. Perhaps with a bit more thought you can figure out for yourself why it's ridiculous.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=242057&mesg_id=242082

Knives appear to account for only about a fifth as many murders as firearms
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html

Many US jurisdictions nevertheless restrict carrying of knives in public, similar to what was pointed out in UK link: "The law .. prohibits the possession of offensive weapons in a public place, and the possession of knives in public without good reason or lawful authority .." It's unclear to me why you find this ridiculous.

It's unclear to me why you find this ridiculous.


If it's unclear to you, then re-read the article. Here, I'll help-- this is from the article:


The researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime.

"The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime.

"We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect."


This is the sort of nanny-state crud Americans don't need or want, and it's just the next step in a progression of consolidating power in the hands of the government in the name of "safety." If we further restrict the possession or sale of firearms because of the reasoning you've demonstrated
in this thread, then next year we'll be having this conversation about kitchen knives and God knows what else.

... None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed. The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs ... French laws in the 17th century decreed that the tips of table and street knives be ground smooth. A century later, forks and blunt-ended table knives were introduced in the UK in an effort to reduce injuries during arguments in public eating houses ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

I'm not sure what an article from a year and a half ago about UK policy discussions on the sale of long pointed knives has to do with American gun violence, nor how the UK's policy discussions contribute to "consolidating power in the hands of the government."

You post with the righteousness of proclaiming guns to be evil, without offering even a sniff of a solution, and you think the U.K. has got the right idea in banning guns and kitchen knives and anything else that could hurt someone (think hard about where that logic leads), and you think it's ok to give up a useful tool just because 10 chefs in the U.K. say we could do without them. Am I mis-interpreting you? If not, I guess I'm just flabbergasted.

You seem to believe that objects cause people to harm and kill other people. Instead of getting at the root social causes of violence, you'd rather focus on guns (but what you'd actually do is anyone's guess) and I suppose after that, knives and whatever else. Poverty, lack of opportunity, mental illness, and plain ole mean-ness are a lot harder issues to deal with than banning guns, but dealing with them would do more to alleviate crime than banning one weapon after another.

I'm not sure what an article from a year and a half ago about UK policy discussions on the sale of long pointed knives has to do with American gun violence,
then read my posts again. They passed a gun ban several years ago-- now they want to ban knives. Banning guns is just a point along a continuum, leading to increasingly silly measures and government intrusions into citizens' lives.


nor how the UK's policy discussions contribute to "consolidating power in the hands of the government."
You really don't see how a government systematically disarming its people consolidates power in the hands of that government? Is that idea over your head?

Mindy Stone

A shooting in Widefield leads to an arrest in Colorado Springs. One young man is dead. Another behind bars ..

http://www.kktv.com/news/headlines/4459827.html

it would be difficult, in general, to deliberately kill someone in their own house (as in my post) using a car or truck.

Ok, it's hard to kill someone in their home with an auto. But that doesn't make that crime the exclusive domain of guns. And I'd much rather have a gun with me for defense of such an attack.

.. using a firearm, not counting the police cases. Something like 12000 a year are murdered by firearms, of whom 800 a year are shot by an intimate partner. About 17000 kill themselves each year with a gun. Counting accidental deaths, homicides, and suicides, about 2500 a year children under the age of 18 die of a gunshot wound each year.

In short, despite the easy availability of guns in the US, the use of guns in self defense accounts for a miniscule fraction of the shooting that occurs.

a.k.a. the Body Count Fallacy.

:eyes:

On the second occasion, I was working a construction crew on a out-of-town job, and went to hang out with the foreman and his girlfriend after hours in their motel room. They had a plentiful supply of beer, and after about an hour the girlfriend went to retrieve something from the fridge, at which point the gun fell off the top of the fridge onto the floor. Girlfriend picked up the gun and handed it to foreman who proceeded "playfully" to point it at me. I found an excuse to extricate myself from the situation as gracefully and quickly as possible. Needless to say, I did not party with them again.

On the third occasion, I was working after hours in my office and heard a noise in the hall. Naturally, I went to investigate. I found myself confronted by a security guard, whose weapon was trained on me. This is a rather loose description, since the guard was so terrified that his hand was trembling uncontrollably and who was entirely speechless until I explained (without moving) who I was, why I was there, and what I was doing. At that point, the weapon was slowly lowered and ultimately holstered.

On this, and at least one other occasion, I have considered myself damn lucky not to have been shot by a fool with a gun. Being armed myself in either of those circumstances might have ensured my sudden death.

Fuck this bullshit.

And it sounds like you have made some poor choices in places to work and people to associate with.

Being armed myself in either of those circumstances might have ensured my sudden death.

I fully support and respect your right to not be armed. This is all about personal liberty and freedom of choice for me.

complained that you do not believe "Only Way To Use A Gun Is To Shoot Someone" (a claim which I, incidently, did not make)

<edit: typography>

You are ignoring the fact that they are also useful for legitimate acts of self-defense, which usually does NOT involve shooting someone.

Since there's about a twitch between the threat and the deed, the ratio of justifiable firearm homicides to total firearm homicides is probably a good first indicator of the ratio of justifiable threats to shoot to the total number of threats to shoot.

If you care to provide some other plausible way to the proportion of justifiable threats to total threats, feel free.

Police officers pull guns on people far, far more often than they actually shoot people.

And, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), in 1993, estimated 108,000 defensive uses of firearms by civilians annually.

One more time, the question you keep dodging:

What changes would you make to existing law?

or in the much longer but separate collection of tables on which it is based. Not sure why you don't post links for this sort of thing. Nor do I understand why you cite the '93 version of a study that's updated every year.

In any case, perhaps you could provide a more specific cite for your number: the tables run to about 150pp, so if it's there it has to be found. Frankly, tho, I suspect your statistic may be highly derivative: perhaps somebody did some creative arithmetic with table numbers, eh?

Try this for your initial Google search string:

"National Crime Victimization Survey" "Firearm Self-Defense"

Here's a tidbit to whet your apetite:

*38% of the victims defending themselves with a firearm attacked
the offender, and the others threatened the offender with the
weapon.

*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.
Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects
of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime
circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims'
injury outcomes.

About three-fourths of the victims who used firearms for
self-defense did so during a crime of violence, 1987-92

If you are open to the idea that there are legitimate reasons for ordinary citizens to use firearms defensively, you should be able to find all kinds of good information. You'll find all kinds of analysis and derivitives and links to propaganda from pro-firearm and anti-firearm pressure groups, so I suggest you steer clear of those and stick with official government sources.

.. through it earlier today, as described in my last post, in which I asked for a more specific cite for the numbers you claimed came from that doc.

I'll take your unwillingness to provide a page number or a table number as meaning you can't find the alleged statistic in the document either.

I'll take your unwillingness to state what you would do about criminal misuse of firearms as an acknowledgement that you have no ideas.

I confess I am having problems finding an exact source for the 108,000 figure. It may be erroneous. I can find the number "108,000" in many places but not an original document.

Would you settle for an average of 82,500 per year for 1987 - 1992 as a starting point? The key document is called "Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and Firearm Theft (1987-92)". It was published in April 1994, NCJ-147003.

Here is a link to a draft in text format:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

The number of defensive uses of firearms annually is tens of thousands, far more than the frequently cited figure of 200 documented justifiable fatal shootings.

You say "I fully support and respect your right to not be armed." Well, golly gosh, thanks ever so much: that's really touching.

Apparently, however, you do not much support and respect my right not to have morons pointing guns at me, since you prefer to speculate that this is due to my "poor choices." Thousands of apparently innocent people make similar "poor choices" and die as a result each year, most without having much control over the situation.

But I do hold the person who misuses a gun responsible for the misuse.

You are responsible for avoiding dangerous situations.

Thousands of apparently innocent people make similar "poor choices" and die as a result each year, most without having much control over the situation.

I'll repeat a question that has been put to you already and not answered: What exactly do you propose to do about it?

.. on the scene.

It's not always immediately clear who the gun-morons are.

In the case of the security guard encounter, I was doing something I had done regularly for about five years at that job: I never saw a guard or gun there at any time before or after that, and I had never met that guard before.

You're simply speculating, meaninglessly, when you claim my "choices contributed"

The Associated Press
Last Updated:October 23. 2006 5:49PM
Published: October 23. 2006 5:49PM
FAIRFIELD, Ala.

A police officer sent to check on a suspicious vehicle in a Birmingham-area neighborhood was fatally shot as she stepped from her patrol car Monday, and a backup officer was wounded as he arrived at the scene seconds later ..
http://www.timesdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061023/APN/610231179

IBMTG

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ct=title&ie=UTF-8&q=homicide+&btnG=Search+News

Did you selectively post just the gun-related stories? There's lots of ways kill somebody. Why don't they pass a law against killing people?

dog maul deaths seemed irrelevant.

Posted: Monday, 23 October 2006 10:16AM

ASBURY PARK, N.J. -- Schools are open in Asbury Park following a two-day shutdown because a student was shot on the street. Tylik Pugh was shot in the head Wednesday morning and died Thursday night ..

http://1010wins.com/pages/112328.php?contentType=4&contentId=227950

.. Police say 25-year-old Joseph Melcher walked into a bar called The Flow Saturday night and started shooting ..

http://www.cbs47.tv/news/state/story.aspx?content_id=CF3E1A42-F536-4A35-AEAA-7F84A79D25EB

But the word "gun" was not mentioned until a plucky teenager pointed out to a panel moderated by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that the common factor was easy access to high-powered firearms.

considering that the guns used in the recent school fatalities weren't high-powered by any definition (well, except for the hunting shotguns), I think someone is a bit misinformed.

Many police departments don't use 9mm pistols because they don't consider 9mm to be powerful enough for police use, for example.

FWIW, a 12-gauge hunting shotgun, like those used at Columbine and in some of the recent shootings, is .729 caliber or 18.5mm...

GANNETT NEW JERSEY

NEW BRUNSWICK-- A 20-year-old Highland Park man died after being shot at the Catholic War Veterans Hall on Delavan Street in New Brunswick, authorities said ..

http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061023/UPDATES01/610230349/1005/NEWS01

HOUSTON -- A man was shot and killed while driving down a southwest Houston road on Saturday, officials told KPRC Local 2 ..

http://www.click2houston.com/news/10136015/detail.html

Increase educational and economic opportunity. It's that simple.

and has always been, a very violent nation. 30,000 deaths from firearms is a very large 100th of 1% of the U.S. population killed ANNUALLY. A real disgrace. Still, thank God for the 2nd amendment. His gun literally saved my fathers life in 1973 when his store was robbed. (Two of the robbers had killed another store owner some months earlier.)

make me even more aware of the dangerous state of the world. The only hyperpower has claimed its right (on extremely dubious grounds) to decide the fate of all the rest of us. Yet its citizens can't even live peaceably, without aggression and the threat of arbitrary lethal force, with one another.

Some of the more extreme types of gun control, especially bans on some guns, are in some big name Democrats' political toolboxes, but to pull that out now would be a big mistake. We have a good chance to get Congress back and the possibly even the White House, but when we start pushing control or threatening that we'll push it when we win back Congress, we just might NOT get the seats we need.

Edited to add: The Repubs are not saying anything about guns just hoping someone on our side of the aisle says, "More Gun Control" or, even worse for us, "Assault Weapons Ban II".

keep bringing up gun control. Nobody is forcing you to own a gun if you don't want to. That is of course unless you join the military or law enforcement. I have had guns since I was a wee boy, and am now a semi mature 58. What is it with some of you, you like loosing causes, it sounds that way. Look any good machinist could make a gun, are you going to try to ban machine tools also? Give me a break!!

The Washington Post
Monday, October 9, 2006

This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone October 5-8, 2006, among a random national sample of 1,204 adults. The results have a three-point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, PA ...

43. Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws in this country? Is that strongly or somewhat favor/oppose?

----------- Favor -------- ---------- Oppose ------- No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Strongly Somewhat opin.
10/8/06 61 45 16 37 22 15 2
5/12/02 57 39 19 37 22 15 6
1/15/01 59 46 13 39 26 13 2
5/10/00 67 50 17 30 22 9 3
4/2/00 64 49 14 34 21 13 2
9/2/99 63 52 11 35 25 11 2
8/15/99 63 46 16 34 22 12 3
5/16/99 67 55 12 31 21 10 1
10/13/93* 64 40 24 33 20 13 3
6/8/89* 60 28 32 34 23 11 6
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_100906.htm

It's one thing to ask people whether they think laws should be stricter. But when you ask them specifically what they would like to see changed, they usually suggest laws that are already on the books.

Hint for struggle4progress - That's why I and others have repeatedly asked YOU to say what you would like to see implemented. I have zero confidence that you actually know what laws we have now.