Do you shoot?

[Knife]

Oh, and about saying that 'shooting requires little skill'. Tell me, have you ever attempted to shoot a small 3" disc flying away from you or across in front of you and blinding speeds? It requires MUCH skill and practice. Just asmuch as your dart throwing. Just ask anyone who has ever done any target shooting and played darts, both of which I have done.

Don't be an ass. Read his sig and perhaps some of his other posts.

[Keevan_Colton]

And what are you going to do with your gun exactly? He has his out nd pointing at you, go on try and use yours and see how much it helps you. Or what about if you see him with a gun commiting a robbery and you shoot at him, first there's no guarentee you'll hit him, second if you do there's fuck all guarantee you'll kill him and there's also the danger of the round continuing on and hitting others. So do tell, apart from giving you a false sense of security and making you feel big, what possible reason do you have for carrying a gun for self-defense?

As to target shooting, there's more skill involved in playing darts that shooting a pistol on a 15m or 20m range. Hell t least archery has some real skill involved in it.

Well, let's see. If you are in your house one night and you hear glass breaking and a door being forced open. You either a)have your .45ACP sitting next to your bed with fragmenting bullets that dissipate energy inside the target, you go out to investigate and see an intruder digging through your wifes jewelry cabinet in your den, so, you pull out your pistol, order the intruder to the ground and your wife calls the police OR b) you have no firearm, so you go out to investigate, you yell 'get out of my house!' so the criminal pulls his gun on you and ends up holding you and your family hostage or worse.

Now, tell me, what would be the better situation to be in? I sure know which one i would want, and it isn't B.

Oh, and about saying that 'shooting requires little skill'. Tell me, have you ever attempted to shoot a small 3" disc flying away from you or across in front of you and blinding speeds? It requires MUCH skill and practice. Just asmuch as your dart throwing. Just ask anyone who has ever done any target shooting and played darts, both of which I have done.

Owning a gun is a huge responsiblity. You must know what you are doing and have training in the usage of the firearm, which can be obtained through most any city police agency. In the State of Tennessee, to obtain a handgun permit, you must take a training course and pass a written exam. You must also go through background checks. Now, go tell the woman who is being stalked by her ex or the old store clerk who has no other way to defend himself that they can't have a gun to defend themselves.

I think the point is it only takes an idiot to fire a gun....it does take skill to hit something with a dart (note fire and hit are rather different).

[RedImperator]

As for the lethality....a sword is only trully lethal in well trained hands.....without skill you are more likely to injure yourself than another.....

Guns are far more "point and click" technology (the difference between a long bow, which takes skill to use with even a tiny amount of success.....and a crossbow....which you can get reasonable results just by pointing...)

It still only really boils down to a matter of degrees so far as swords go. And some of the weapons you mentioned (notably axes) don't strike me [no pun intended] as tremendously difficult weapons with which to hurt someone badly.

[Knife]

Keevan Coltan wrote:

think the point is it only takes an idiot to fire a gun....it does take skill to hit something with a dart (note fire and hit are rather different).

Actualy I take issue with that. An idiot can pull a trigger as well as an idiot can swing a sword. But shooting, like swordmanship, is a skill and one that took me quite a while to be good at. Both a sword and a gun are designed to kill, down through the ages other uses (mostly pertending to kill) have be invented for the weapons. But the primary reason for the sword and the gun is to kill.

[Rob Wilson]

And what are you going to do with your gun exactly? He has his out nd pointing at you, go on try and use yours and see how much it helps you. Or what about if you see him with a gun commiting a robbery and you shoot at him, first there's no guarentee you'll hit him, second if you do there's fuck all guarantee you'll kill him and there's also the danger of the round continuing on and hitting others. So do tell, apart from giving you a false sense of security and making you feel big, what possible reason do you have for carrying a gun for self-defense?

As to target shooting, there's more skill involved in playing darts that shooting a pistol on a 15m or 20m range. Hell t least archery has some real skill involved in it.

Well, let's see. If you are in your house one night and you hear glass breaking and a door being forced open. You either a)have your .45ACP sitting next to your bed with fragmenting bullets that dissipate energy inside the target, you go out to investigate and see an intruder digging through your wifes jewelry cabinet in your den, so, you pull out your pistol, order the intruder to the ground and your wife calls the police OR b) you have no firearm, so you go out to investigate, you yell 'get out of my house!' so the criminal pulls his gun on you and ends up holding you and your family hostage or worse.

Now, tell me, what would be the better situation to be in? I sure know which one i would want, and it isn't B.

You go down and find he has a gun and having heard you appraoching down the stairs he has it on you. Oh dear.
And just out of interest, you switch the light on (which dazzles you - or were you planning on shooting in the dark?), and tell him to freeze. Instead he runs, do you shoot? If not, what difference does it make if you came down with baseball bat? If you do shoot, what's your family going to do while your in prison for manslaughter?

Oh, and about saying that 'shooting requires little skill'. Tell me, have you ever attempted to shoot a small 3" disc flying away from you or across in front of you and blinding speeds? It requires MUCH skill and practice. Just asmuch as your dart throwing. Just ask anyone who has ever done any target shooting and played darts, both of which I have done.

No I only had to place a 7.62mm round consistantly inside a 1" square patch at 800m against both moving and static targets. And had to be able to consistantly acheive beloq 20mm groupings with 9mm pistols at 15m with 10 rounds. Moving and static targets. hitting something as wide as a 75mm disc wasn't ever thought of on a military range. It must take simply minutes of practice to accomplish.

As to th darts and pistols, if you can't hit whatever part of a dartboard named by someone at 15m after a few hours practice with a pistol, thn you shouldn't have a pistol in the first place. Lets see you do the same consistantly with darts.

Owning a gun is a huge responsiblity. You must know what you are doing and have training in the usage of the firearm, which can be obtained through most any city police agency. In the State of Tennessee, to obtain a handgun permit, you must take a training course and pass a written exam.

Excellent, and as i said to Knife, as long as they know how and when to use or not use the weapon, and have to constantly practice with it, requalifying every so often. Then fine, but I still se no need for thm to have a gun in the first place.

You must also go through background checks. Now, go tell the woman who is being stalked by her ex or the old store clerk who has no other way to defend himself that they can't have a gun to defend themselves.

Hang on, so if she has gun then suddenly everythings ok? What a stunning grasp of the Stalker mentality you have. It doesn't matter if she rings her house with Nuclear Landmines, the stalker is still going to keep coming, and he's just as likely to have a gun as she is, and a damned sight more likely to use it no matter the odds if provoked. The only thing tht will stop him is if he's locked up. Or a re you advocating she just go out and shoot him anyway?

The clerk is not likely to be able to use his firearm hile they have guns pointing at him.

[RedImperator]

I think the point is it only takes an idiot to fire a gun....it does take skill to hit something with a dart (note fire and hit are rather different).

At anything but near point-blank range, it takes skill to hit someone with a pistol, too. The death rates for gangbangers over here would be much higher if pistols had anywhere near the accuracy many people assume they do.

[Keevan_Colton]

I think the point is it only takes an idiot to fire a gun....it does take skill to hit something with a dart (note fire and hit are rather different).

At anything but near point-blank range, it takes skill to hit someone with a pistol, too. The death rates for gangbangers over here would be much higher if pistols had anywhere near the accuracy many people assume they do.

I said fire not hit and did make pains there to say the two were different....just remember that every bullet does go somewhere even if it isnt on target.....one reason why I think people who shoot at random into the air as a celbration deserve an introduction to gravity and its consequences

[Sea Skimmer]

Hang on, so if she has gun then suddenly everythings ok? What a stunning grasp of the Stalker mentality you have. It doesn't matter if she rings her house with Nuclear Landmines, the stalker is still going to keep coming, and he's just as likely to have a gun as she is, and a damned sight more likely to use it no matter the odds if provoked. The only thing tht will stop him is if he's locked up. Or a re you advocating she just go out and shoot him anyway?

The clerk is not likely to be able to use his firearm hile they have guns pointing at him.

And if he ever decides to actually attack her, a gun will provide significant protection. Unlike a knife or any form of martial arts training, your physical condition has relatively little bearing on your ability to use a handgun at close range.

The countless robbers that have been shot dead by armed Clerks would like to aruge you your assertion that the robber being armed somehow makes the Clerks weapon useless.

[RedImperator]

I think the point is it only takes an idiot to fire a gun....it does take skill to hit something with a dart (note fire and hit are rather different).

At anything but near point-blank range, it takes skill to hit someone with a pistol, too. The death rates for gangbangers over here would be much higher if pistols had anywhere near the accuracy many people assume they do.

I said fire not hit and did make pains there to say the two were different....just remember that every bullet does go somewhere even if it isnt on target.....one reason why I think people who shoot at random into the air as a celbration deserve an introduction to gravity and its consequences

Oops. Tequilla and reading don't mix.

Agreed on firing into the air. If you want to celebrate with loud gunpowdery things in the sky, take a trip to the state with liberal fireworks laws near you (it seems out of any group of five states here, there's at least one where fireworks stands are as common as gas stations--often, in fact, the two products are sold by the same establishment).

[Rob Wilson]

He was answering a post advocating them for self-defence, I thought the context was evident.

Ah, didn't read that. I should have made my position clearer.

reading the way my question came across just now, I'm suprised you didn't raise a question about the arrogant tone (which you would hve been very right to, I could have worded that much better).

Yes you have the right to life, and self-defence. You don't have the right to take someone elses life or endanger others not involved in your self-defence action. As I pointed out, a pistol is not going to help you when your opponent also has one, and the right to self-defence does not mean handguns anymore than it means Chainguns or Flamethrowers.

If I'm not permitted to use lethal force to counter the threat of lethal force, then for all intents and purposes I don't have a right to defend myself.

And that automatically entitles you to hndguns, how? A flamethrower is lethal force, have you tried explaining to the police that you're just carrying it for self-defence? And you also do not have the right to use lethal force to defend yourself unless it is the only option available to you in that situation.

In regards to the usefulness of pistols in self-defense, yes, it's true that if I wake up with the perp's weapon pointed at my ear, then a pistol will be quite useless, as will any other weapon. It's an entirely different story if I'm woken up by the sound of the back door being kicked in.

If he's kicking your door in, i doubt he's too worried about whether he wakes you or not, that tends to mean he has a weapon and will be ready to use it. Your better of escaping the house and calling the police than starting a gun battle in your house.

Likewise, on the street, if I'm surprised and I find a mugger's gun pointed at my face, it doesn't matter if I'm carrying a pistol, a can of mace, or a phaser. But if some fucknut decides he's going to shoot up the Buger King in which I'm enjoying my double cheeseburger, then carrying a weapon could prove useful.

This is about the only situation someones put up so far that wouldcall for gun to be used. As long as you can be sure you're not going to hit someone else in the crossfire, and you know that your shot will drop the guy straight way, then you would be right to shoot him. Out of interest, there a lot of homicidal maniacs shooting up the shops in your area?

I was thinking back to a post in another thread where I believe he mentioned he nearly got badly hurt in a duel. I think it was the "How did you almost earn your Darwin" thread. I probably misread the thread. And I meant a dulled weapon could still be lethal used against an innocent third party, not the duelist, especially some of the heavier bladed weapons (axes and the like).

EDIT: Fixed a "quote" tag

Ah, fair enough then.

[Rob Wilson]

Hang on, so if she has gun then suddenly everythings ok? What a stunning grasp of the Stalker mentality you have. It doesn't matter if she rings her house with Nuclear Landmines, the stalker is still going to keep coming, and he's just as likely to have a gun as she is, and a damned sight more likely to use it no matter the odds if provoked. The only thing tht will stop him is if he's locked up. Or a re you advocating she just go out and shoot him anyway?

The clerk is not likely to be able to use his firearm hile they have guns pointing at him.

And if he ever decides to actually attack her, a gun will provide significant protection. Unlike a knife or any form of martial arts training, your physical condition has relatively little bearing on your ability to use a handgun at close range.

So her committing manslaughter is perfectly ok for you then? After all if he doesn't have a gun then her shooting him is illegal. If he does have a gun, then we're back to how much protection does a gun give you if they have one pointing at you to start with (which is even worse when it's a lunatic with the gun).

The countless robbers that have been shot dead by armed Clerks would like to aruge you your assertion that the robber being armed somehow makes the Clerks weapon useless.

So countless you won't have a problem producing authorative figures to back that claim up? And Just how many of those clerks had a gun pointing at them when they produced their own?

[RedImperator]

He was answering a post advocating them for self-defence, I thought the context was evident.

Ah, didn't read that. I should have made my position clearer.

reading the way my question came across just now, I'm suprised you didn't raise a question about the arrogant tone (which you would hve been very right to, I could have worded that much better).

Don't worry about it. I didn't even notice. And, considering what's par for the course on this board, a touch of arrogance would be about as offensive as a blowjob from a Victoria's Secret model.

Yes you have the right to life, and self-defence. You don't have the right to take someone elses life or endanger others not involved in your self-defence action. As I pointed out, a pistol is not going to help you when your opponent also has one, and the right to self-defence does not mean handguns anymore than it means Chainguns or Flamethrowers.

If I'm not permitted to use lethal force to counter the threat of lethal force, then for all intents and purposes I don't have a right to defend myself.

And that automatically entitles you to hndguns, how? A flamethrower is lethal force, have you tried explaining to the police that you're just carrying it for self-defence? And you also do not have the right to use lethal force to defend yourself unless it is the only option available to you in that situation.

A handgun isn't remotely comparable to a flamethrower, as it's virtually guaranteed to cause collateral damage. As Sea Skimmer pointed out, a handgun is the only weapon of reasonable size that doesn't rely on the physical skills or attributes of the holder. If I'm facing someone who's armed, or swings a baseball bat better than I do, or knows martial arts, or is simply faster and stronger than I am, I'm at a major disadvantage holding anything but a pistol.

In regards to the usefulness of pistols in self-defense, yes, it's true that if I wake up with the perp's weapon pointed at my ear, then a pistol will be quite useless, as will any other weapon. It's an entirely different story if I'm woken up by the sound of the back door being kicked in.

If he's kicking your door in, i doubt he's too worried about whether he wakes you or not, that tends to mean he has a weapon and will be ready to use it. Your better of escaping the house and calling the police than starting a gun battle in your house.

Or he's assuming I'm unarmed, as the majority of households are. And I live on the second floor with a concrete patio below the window and only one stairway down. "Escaping the house" is likely to break my ankle, or worse, while the sound of drawing the slide back on a 9mm would probably be enough to send the intruder on his merry way.

Likewise, on the street, if I'm surprised and I find a mugger's gun pointed at my face, it doesn't matter if I'm carrying a pistol, a can of mace, or a phaser. But if some fucknut decides he's going to shoot up the Buger King in which I'm enjoying my double cheeseburger, then carrying a weapon could prove useful.

This is about the only situation someones put up so far that wouldcall for gun to be used. As long as you can be sure you're not going to hit someone else in the crossfire, and you know that your shot will drop the guy straight way, then you would be right to shoot him. Out of interest, there a lot of homicidal maniacs shooting up the shops in your area?

No, but there's been a number of incidents in recent years of this happening and dozens of people getting killed where one civilian with a handgun might have taken down the perp immediately. For the record, I don't carry a concealed weapon and probably wouldn't apply for the liscense unless I moved into a bad neighborhood, but I know how to shoot well enough that I'd be able to fire at the perp without endangering anyone else.

[Perinquus]

Used to shoot, now I don't. I do however have my eye on a reproduction Napoleonic Musket and a Deactivated Lee-Enfield SMLE mk4, because both are such fine looking pieces of work and would look good hanging in the hall.

I have a moral objection to deacticated firearms.

(I also own a functioning SMLE, No 1. Mark III - strong candidate for best bolt action service rifle ever. I love the way it looks with that unusual muzzle cap as well.)

[Darth Wong]

This is about the only situation someones put up so far that wouldcall for gun to be used. As long as you can be sure you're not going to hit someone else in the crossfire, and you know that your shot will drop the guy straight way, then you would be right to shoot him. Out of interest, there a lot of homicidal maniacs shooting up the shops in your area?

No, but there's been a number of incidents in recent years of this happening and dozens of people getting killed where one civilian with a handgun might have taken down the perp immediately. For the record, I don't carry a concealed weapon and probably wouldn't apply for the liscense unless I moved into a bad neighborhood, but I know how to shoot well enough that I'd be able to fire at the perp without endangering anyone else.

Tell me, do such incidents take the lives of more than a thousand people every single year? Because accidental shootings with ordinary domestic firearms kill many more than that every year, hundreds of them children. If you're going to say the former outweighs the latter, the numbers don't add up.

[Sea Skimmer]

This is about the only situation someones put up so far that wouldcall for gun to be used. As long as you can be sure you're not going to hit someone else in the crossfire, and you know that your shot will drop the guy straight way, then you would be right to shoot him. Out of interest, there a lot of homicidal maniacs shooting up the shops in your area?

No, but there's been a number of incidents in recent years of this happening and dozens of people getting killed where one civilian with a handgun might have taken down the perp immediately. For the record, I don't carry a concealed weapon and probably wouldn't apply for the liscense unless I moved into a bad neighborhood, but I know how to shoot well enough that I'd be able to fire at the perp without endangering anyone else.

Tell me, do such incidents take the lives of more than a thousand people every single year? Because accidental shootings with ordinary domestic firearms kill many more than that every year, hundreds of them children. If you're going to say the former outweighs the latter, the numbers don't add up.

About 2,500 criminals are killed each year in the United States, by private citzens with guns while the criminal is enaged in a crime against them, generally some form of robbery. About 10,000 more are wounded.

[Darth Wong]

About 2,500 criminals are killed each year in the United States, by private citzens with guns while the criminal is enaged in a crime against them, generally some form of robbery. About 10,000 more are wounded.

How many of these criminals are pointing a gun at the citizen at the time they're shot? In other words, how many of these shootings are revenge shootings or summary executions rather than actual immediate self-defense?

[Perinquus]

This is about the only situation someones put up so far that wouldcall for gun to be used. As long as you can be sure you're not going to hit someone else in the crossfire, and you know that your shot will drop the guy straight way, then you would be right to shoot him. Out of interest, there a lot of homicidal maniacs shooting up the shops in your area?

No, but there's been a number of incidents in recent years of this happening and dozens of people getting killed where one civilian with a handgun might have taken down the perp immediately. For the record, I don't carry a concealed weapon and probably wouldn't apply for the liscense unless I moved into a bad neighborhood, but I know how to shoot well enough that I'd be able to fire at the perp without endangering anyone else.

Tell me, do such incidents take the lives of more than a thousand people every single year? Because accidental shootings with ordinary domestic firearms kill many more than that every year, hundreds of them children. If you're going to say the former outweighs the latter, the numbers don't add up.

Careful Mike. The statistics put forth by organizations like Handgun Control Inc. (and such statistics are often accepted uncritically by the media [which is itself comprised largely of reporters with overwhelmingly leftward political leanings]) include ALL juveniles - EVERYONE under the age of 18. What that doesn't tell you is that a lot of these "children" dying from gunshot wounds are juvenile gangbangers killing each other on the street in gunfights. It's not exactly the same as little Johnny getting Dad's gun out of the nightstand drawer and mistakenly blowing his own head off.

In 1997 (the last year for which I have any statistics), the National Center for Health Statistics reported a total of 21 accidental handgun deaths for children up through age 14. No, that's not a typo: 21 deaths. Even the 15-19 year olds only add another 34 handgun accidental deaths in the entire United States. (Don't believe me? Check it out yourself at:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/u ... /gmwki.htm. Look under ICD 922.0 for handgun accidental deaths.

The supposed 12 children a day that are killed by gunfire in the United States? That includes "children" who are 19 years old, suicides, murders, hunting accidents, gang members killing other gang members, and both police and civilians shooting "children" who are engaged in rape, armed robbery, and attempted murder. There is a real problem with violence in the U.S. (and not just gun violence), but almost all of it is intentional misuse of a gun.

Here are some enlightening statistics:

Ages 0-14
Column 1 is the year

Column 2 is the number of reported accidental handgun deaths

Column 3 is the number of suicides


1979 55 10
1980 55 10
1981 35 15
1982 31 19
1983 35 23
1984 41 18
1985 38 18
1986 36 27
1987 40 22
1988 30 23
1989 46 19
1990 55 30
1991 44 34
1992 36 40
1993 38 38
1994 32 35
1995 42 34
1996 29 27
1997 21 32

As you can see, suicides are up from '79, but accidental deaths are down by more than 50%

source: National Center for Health Statistics, http://wonder.cdc.gov/


This isn't exactly statistical, but as a policeman of almost three years experience I have been the first responding officer at a number of deaths, which include murders, suicides, and deaths by natural causes. I have investigated NO cases of children who killed themselves or other children accidentally, nor am I aware of any such deaths within the city of Norfolk in the last three years.

[Darth Wong]

You missed the point. I was talking about the notion that these store-shooting multiple killings outweigh the detriments of widespread handgun proliferation. Unless these psychotic store-shootings kill hundreds every year, they do not compete with the number of people killed in ACCIDENTAL handgun deaths. You are attacking the trivialities of the point.

[Isil`Zha]

All the time. It's only a 15 minute drive to any good shooting area where I live. Though most of the time I only shoot .22s (ammo is a lot cheaper). And a 12 gauge. When the time of the year is right I'll actually go looking for live targets... with a .223. That's loads of fun.

[Perinquus]

You missed the point. I was talking about the notion that these store-shooting multiple killings outweigh the detriments of widespread handgun proliferation. Unless these psychotic store-shootings kill hundreds every year, they do not compete with the number of people killed in ACCIDENTAL handgun deaths. You are attacking the trivialities of the point.

The point you were making, or so it seemed to me, is that the number of accidental handgun deaths was so great that these other shootings would have to go into high numbers to exceed them. You asserted that:

...accidental shootings with ordinary domestic firearms kill many more than that every year, hundreds of them children.

The facts just don't bear this assertion out, however. It's not hundreds; it's tens, and low tens at that. I'm not attacking the trivialities of the point, I'm pointing out that your numbers are quite wrong. That changes the complexion of the argument a bit.

[Keevan_Colton]

You missed the point. I was talking about the notion that these store-shooting multiple killings outweigh the detriments of widespread handgun proliferation. Unless these psychotic store-shootings kill hundreds every year, they do not compete with the number of people killed in ACCIDENTAL handgun deaths. You are attacking the trivialities of the point.

The point you were making, or so it seemed to me, is that the number of accidental handgun deaths was so great that these other shootings would have to go into high numbers to exceed them. You asserted that:

...accidental shootings with ordinary domestic firearms kill many more than that every year, hundreds of them children.

The facts just don't bear this assertion out, however. It's not hundreds; it's tens, and low tens at that. I'm not attacking the trivialities of the point, I'm pointing out that your numbers are quite wrong. That changes the complexion of the argument a bit.

Expand the scope to accidental injuries...the marvels of modern medical support......not every time you accidently shoot a family member are you going to kill them.....and you have a better idea......

[RedImperator]

You missed the point. I was talking about the notion that these store-shooting multiple killings outweigh the detriments of widespread handgun proliferation. Unless these psychotic store-shootings kill hundreds every year, they do not compete with the number of people killed in ACCIDENTAL handgun deaths. You are attacking the trivialities of the point.

The point you were making, or so it seemed to me, is that the number of accidental handgun deaths was so great that these other shootings would have to go into high numbers to exceed them. You asserted that:

...accidental shootings with ordinary domestic firearms kill many more than that every year, hundreds of them children.

The facts just don't bear this assertion out, however. It's not hundreds; it's tens, and low tens at that. I'm not attacking the trivialities of the point, I'm pointing out that your numbers are quite wrong. That changes the complexion of the argument a bit.

Expand the scope to accidental injuries...the marvels of modern medical support......not every time you accidently shoot a family member are you going to kill them.....and you have a better idea......

If you're going to do that, then expand the scope of "self-defense" to include the incedents where the perp takes off as soon as he realizes the defenders are armed. I would bet (and if anyone could point me to the statistics on this, I'd be eternally grateful) that the majority of armed confrontations between armed homeowners/shopkeepers and criminals ends without either side firing at the other, just the perp scared off by the sight/sound of a gun.

[Perinquus]

Expand the scope to accidental injuries...the marvels of modern medical support......not every time you accidently shoot a family member are you going to kill them.....and you have a better idea......

But the whole point of the argument is that guns are dangerous and the harm that results from accidental shootings might outweigh the good they do in self defense. Well, given the extremely low numbers of such genuine accidental shootings, I think the benefits of having them for self defense outweighs the risk.

I have just located another source of accidental firearm death numbers (the previous set came from the Centers for Disease Control). These come from the National Safety Council. They're higher than the CDC numbers, but they're still quite low:

In 1997 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 1,500 accidental deaths involving firearms in the U.S. This is a rate of .6 per 100,000. (Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts)

Age breakdown for accidental shooting deaths in 1996:

0-4 years: 40 deaths

5-14 years: 180 deaths

15-24 years: 450 deaths

25-44 years: 450 deaths

45-64 years: 240 deaths

65-74 years: 80 deaths

75+ years: 60 deaths

(Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts) I



In 1995, there were 12.8 non-fatal firearms related injury for each accidental death. (Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts)

Just 1500 accidental firearms deaths in the whole U.S. in 1997. Compare that with:

Death (1997)

1. Motor vehicles: 43,200 deaths

2. Falls: 14,900 deaths

3. Poisoning by solids or liquids: 8,600 deaths

4. Drowning: 4,000 deaths

5. Fires, burns and related deaths: 3,700 deaths

6. Suffocation by swallowing object: 3,300 deaths

7. Firearms-related: 1,500 deaths

8. Poisoning by gases and vapors: 700 deaths

9. All other causes (including medical "misadventures"): 13,900

Total deaths: 93,800

(Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts)



The Most Common Activities that Lead to Emergency Room Visits

1. Baseball/softball 404,000

2. Dog bites 334,000

3. Playground 267,000

4. ATV's, mopeds 125,000

5. Volleyball 98,000

6. In-line skating 76,000

7. Horseback riding 71,000

8. Baby walkers 28,000

9. Skateboards 25,000

Looks like there are a great many things out there that you and your kids are a whole lot more likely to die of or be seriously injured by than firearms.

Again, given the much greater number of instances where civilian firearms are used to save innocent lives and thwart crimes compared with the number of deaths and injuries resulting from accidental misuse of a firearm, and add to that the virtual impossibility of preventing the criminal element in society from obtaining firearms, and it looks like, on the balance, the benefits of private firearms ownership outweigh the detriments.

[Rob Wilson]

You missed the point. I was talking about the notion that these store-shooting multiple killings outweigh the detriments of widespread handgun proliferation. Unless these psychotic store-shootings kill hundreds every year, they do not compete with the number of people killed in ACCIDENTAL handgun deaths. You are attacking the trivialities of the point.

The point you were making, or so it seemed to me, is that the number of accidental handgun deaths was so great that these other shootings would have to go into high numbers to exceed them.

Mike was responding to the scenario Red imperator placed about people shooting up a Burger King or similar shops. Therefore to clarify, do the number of acidental deaths from firearms outnumber the deaths from mass shootings such as was described by Red Imperator. He was noit comparing it to every other shooting incident in the States, only those specifically mentioned in the scenario.

[Rob Wilson]

Used to shoot, now I don't. I do however have my eye on a reproduction Napoleonic Musket and a Deactivated Lee-Enfield SMLE mk4, because both are such fine looking pieces of work and would look good hanging in the hall.

I have a moral objection to deacticated firearms.

(I also own a functioning SMLE, No 1. Mark III - strong candidate for best bolt action service rifle ever. I love the way it looks with that unusual muzzle cap as well.)

What moral objection is there to a deactivated firearm? Especially when it's being used purely decoratively. It's a lump of metal and wood, somehow i doubt it objects one way or the other.