Take the state out of the schools!!!!!

quote:

---

http://medlib.med.utah.edu/...ath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

​

"In the U.S. for 1998, there were 30,708 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 17,424; Homicide 12,102; Accident 866; Undetermined 316. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, but has since declined steadily.(CDC, 2001) However, firearms injuries remain the second leading cause of injury-related death in the U.S., particularly among youth (Cherry et al, 1998).

---

One of the top causes of death in the US? Shraf did you by chance bother to explain where criminals purchase their fire arms? Would banning firearms prevent them from obtaining them? What are your theories?What is the leading cause of injury related death? Maybe we should start by banning that first.You are counting suicide by firearms in this dicussion? don't you think that a tad bit ridiculous? Can you prove these individuals wouldn't have committed suicide without the firearms?

quote:

---

The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. A 1994 study revealed the cost per injury requiring admission to a trauma center was over $14,000. The cumulative lifetime cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with $13.4 billion in lost productivity. (Mock et al, 1994) The cost of the improper use of firearms in Canada was estimated at $6.6 billion per year. (Chapdelaine and Maurice, 1996)"<

---

Shraf i am having a terrible time following your logic. Are you suggesting we should ban firearms because some people own them and hurt themselves with them? If so why not ban cars, kives, baseball bats and all the other assorted possession which in some way could inflict damage on one's person. In contrast, what were the reported costs for other assorted injuries? [/quote]Thirty THOUSAND people dead, freaky.[/quote]can you prove banning firearms or imposing laws on them would vastly decrease the number of firearm related crimes? Of course banning firearms would prevent accidents with them. Banning cars would also prevent car related deaths. Perhaps we should think about that first.

quote:

---

"Child safety is an important issue. Firearms injury is the second leading cause of non-natural death in childhood and adolescence. (CDC, 2000) Accidental shooting deaths are most commonly associated with one or more children playing with a gun they found in the home. (Choi, et al, 1994) The person pulling the trigger is a friend, family member, or the victim. (Harruff, 1992)"

---

really? Some figures please. What is the leading cause? [/quote]In one survey, 10% of families admitted to having unlocked and loaded firearms within easy reach of children (Patterson and Smith, 1987). Another study showed that two-thirds of accidental firearms injuries occured in the home, and one-third involved children under 15. 45% were self-inflicted, and 16% occurred when children were playing with guns. (Morrow and Hudson, 1986)[/quote]So these figures are indicative of the populous as a whole? can you provide some information concerning these statistics?

quote:

---

"The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. A of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998).

---

Really? In three US cities? Which ones? When was this servey taken under what conditions? How does these small amounts of the populous reflect the populous as a whole?

quote:

---

Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). It would appear that, rather than beign used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families."

---

Really? that should come to around 150 million or more. The figures don't add up.

LOL john you are so right and many statistics mongers are guilty of exactly that.Such statistics are purely "plutonic." Their relationship to the why's and how's are only reflected in a small portion of the populas opinions whom the conductors suppose represents the whole. This is of course only true if the sample actually provide their opinion. otherwise the numbers don't represent anything really. I take statistics with a grain of salt.[This message has been edited by iconoclast2440, 02-20-2003]

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the top causes of death in the US? Shraf did you by chance bother to explain where criminals purchase their fire arms?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Why is that relevant?

---

If they are buying them illegally legally banning them may not have an affect.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would banning firearms prevent them from obtaining them? What are your theories?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

I do not advocate banning all firearms. I advocate banning the sale of militaty-type weapons and handguns.

---

Military type weapons? IE an assault rifle ? Do you know what the difference between a civilian model assault rifle and a standard rifle is?

quote:

---

Well, if one looks at countries such as the UK which bans handguns, one sees that criminals rarely get their hands on them.

---

Do they represent us? Do they have the same criminal aspect we have? Do their criminals have the same resources. This sounds as though its an argument of motive and capacity. Can you compare and contrast the cirminal element of the US with that of the UK?

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the leading cause of injury related death? Maybe we should start by banning that first.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of injury death in the US.

---

figured that much. [quote]It is all that not comparable to gun deaths, however, because cars are not specifically manufactured to be used as weapons.

quote:

---

Also, homicide by gunshot is the leading cause of death in some places:

​

Page Not Found - Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

---

really? while vehicular deaths remain the vast majority over all? BTW what does this have to do with banning military surplus weapons?

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are counting suicide by firearms in this dicussion? don't you think that a tad bit ridiculous? Can you prove these individuals wouldn't have committed suicide without the firearms?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

No, but if a suicidal person has access to a gun they are more likely to actually succeed in killing themselves than those who don't.

---

can you prove this?

quote:

---

"Nearly 3 of every 5 suicides in 1999 (57%) were committed with a firearm."

---

how does this prove the prior statement?

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shraf i am having a terrible time following your logic. Are you suggesting we should ban firearms because some people own them and hurt themselves with them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

No, I am suggesting that we ban military style weapons and handguns because they serve no other purpose than killing people a great deal of the time.

---

vague definition. explain what military style weapons are or how your statistics represent their danger.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If so why not ban cars, kives, baseball bats and all the other assorted possession which in some way could inflict damage on one's person.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Baseball bats are used for baseball. Knives (some kinds of knives, like switchblades, are banned) are used for hunting or cooking. Cars are used for transportation.

​

Military guns and hand guns are used for killing people.

---

Really? Then why haven't all handgun owners killed some one if they have handguns? Other objects can be leathal. does playing the "it was meant to" game change that fact? No. Infact the vast majority of guns aren't ever used to kill anyone. Infact more cars end up killing people.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, what were the reported costs for other assorted injuries?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Don't know. I was researching the cost of gun injuries because there is no excuse for them occurring. There is no good reason to have such easy access to military weapons and ammunition unless you think it's OK for thousands and thousands of people die every year.

---

then these are rather meaningless figures. Why not ban cars so thousand won't die every year? LOL. If you study insurance companies you will realize many of them believe driving a red car over a black one might cause you to be more recklass (based purely on color). Perhaps we should ban the color car most accidents occur with (if this reasoning is infact valid)?Banning a "military weapon" sounds just as absurd as banning all red cars.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
can you prove banning firearms or imposing laws on them would vastly decrease the number of firearm related crimes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

I think that controlling handguns and military weapons would greatly decrease the number of firearm related crimes judging by the low firearm-related crime rates in countries which have banned such weapons.

---

You have done research i am assuming? Have you compared the criminal element of the us to that of other nations? If so demonstrate how such would occur here under restriction of firearms acts? Why is it gun crimes/damamges have go up? You must igknowledge such is directly proportional to the number of gun laws.

quote:

---

Page Not Found - Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

​

"Among 36 high-income and upper-middle-income countries, the U.S. has the highest overall gun mortality rate. The rate of gun mortality in the U.S. is 8 times higher than in other high-income countries.

---

Again this doesn't account for the criminal element of the US or other issues concerned.

quote:

---

Of all firearm homicides in 2000 in which the type of gun was known, 88% were committed with handguns.

---

Legally or illegally owned?

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course banning firearms would prevent accidents with them. Banning cars would also prevent car related deaths. Perhaps we should think about that first.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

This is a silly comparison. Cars are primarily used for transportation. Car accidents are a side effect of bad driving.

​

Military firearms and handguns are intended to be used to kill people.
Gun injuries and deaths are the intended purpose of having a gun.

---

Actually its not. You are playing a silly word game. You assert "weapons are meant to kill" which is ridiculous - you are claiming to know the intent of all owners. You deny the fact other supposed nonweapons are as lethal if used improperly (ie cars). Simply tagging supposed intent on something doesn't address the point of the topic. Futhermore an accident is an accident. Regardless of the supposed intent of the tool the alledged incident occured without the direct intent of hurting some one. Rendering the asserted purpose of the object irrelevant. If you ask me this is more evidence of personal irresponsibility then it is a gun problem. The same could be said for motorists.[This message has been edited by iconoclast2440, 02-20-2003]